If he was asked in the context of “should states or federal decide on stuff” and he didn’t want to actually criticize the passed decision, while he was being evaluated for supreme court, okay, maybe an edge case I myself have no experience with. Let the man walk free
You’re giving him a LOT of “benefit of the doubt”. On a larger scale, the whole argument of federal vs state rights is really just a more nuanced way for them to make a “not in my backyard” argument. They want the states to be able to choose not because it would give more freedom or anything like that, it’s because they want THEIR state to be able to make something illegal, which is the opposite of more freedom
If he was asked in the context of “should states or federal decide on stuff” and he didn’t want to actually criticize the passed decision, while he was being evaluated for supreme court, okay, maybe an edge case I myself have no experience with. Let the man walk free
You’re giving him a LOT of “benefit of the doubt”. On a larger scale, the whole argument of federal vs state rights is really just a more nuanced way for them to make a “not in my backyard” argument. They want the states to be able to choose not because it would give more freedom or anything like that, it’s because they want THEIR state to be able to make something illegal, which is the opposite of more freedom