Depends on if they draw a trump judge or not

Make sure they are born, so they can die to the system like normal people.

Children without health insurance rarely have the spare coin necessary to run political ads.

not gonna lie, I thought you were legitimately posting until like the last third of your post.

I'm old enough to remember conservatives crowing about how "All Lives Matter".

I’ll shit on it, you piss on it.

And Trump’s too.

I would, but doing so would involve visiting Florida.

Must be some kind of bully complex. He desperately wants to be seen as strong, but only ever comes across as cruel. As much as I love a good chuckle on Florida Mans, I feel for them that lil’ Ronda is still in power.

As a mod of the sub, I can't ethically support this path of discussion and advise that you tread carefully as to not run afoul of various possible interpretations of Rule 1.

As a Floridian, I upvoted that shit before I walked in the room.

I cannot give you advice in this situation, but I do know you'll do the right thing.

what should I do?

Add a furnace behind the wood chipper

Fertilize the tree of freedom.

Shoot him in the gut. Wood chipper would be too quick for him.

Make sure it's on.

https://media.tenor.com/images/d5118ecd3d57a9c79ee0b56cc209d312/tenor.gif

Why a cowboy hat? Has he banned those too?

Ron DeSantis, American fascist.

Normally, yes.

With this supreme court? Who knows.

Yes. This is performative except for all of the children he's hurting.

For the most part, federal law will override state law. However, states have broader powers in the kinds of laws they can make, while the federal government is more limited. That's part of why the commerce clause comes up so much, it's frequently used to justify federal authority in things that would normally be handled at the state level, even if it means stretching the definition of commerce from time to time.

In this case, I'm guessing that this challenge is based on this being a program administered by the state, and partially funded by the federal government. Programs like that generally come with federal requirements that the state has to follow in order to get the funding. The federal government can exert significant influence over state policy this way, (for example, the drinking age went from 18 to 21 largely because states that didn't make the change would have lost federal funds for highways). But there have been cases where the requirements were thrown out for being too coercive and undermining constitutional authority delegated to the states.

Of course, I highly doubt that such a claim would have any merit in this case. But meritless lawsuits aren't a problem when they stir up support from your base while having no negative consequences for you if you lose. Sure, it costs the state a lot of money, but when the state's lawyers are your buddies, that's just doing them a favor.