well right, because for better or worse in the US system the federal courts are expected to offer a large degree of deference to state law.

Those against the policy have to reach a high bar of showing that the policy is in actual violation of federal law. If they don't reach that bar, the SCOTUS has no authority to override the wants of the communities that passed the policies.

@volkris Much of that presumed social norms that no longer exist. Despite being constantly told social regressive did not accept defeat when Roe v Wade passed, so-called Centrists and Progressives alike behaved as if it was settled law that would never change.

The same can be said about every single civil rights law of the past 75 years, now either overturned or effectively rendered mute, neutralized.

While it takes disciplined study and practice to create anything of value, the same cannot be said of the blunt force and cunning required to swiftly destroy the labor of generations.

Were there were no forces at work defending the Oligarch regime ascending to power in America's highest offices, it would still require generations to rebuild what has been lost.

I will not surrender, but based on prior history, I am skeptical of recovery, and certain I will not live to see the tree of liberty restored, root and branch.

what?

That's simply not true, and the continued success of appealing to very active civil rights law debunks that pretty sensational claim about the state of law.

What you're saying about the laws being overturned or mute is easily debunked by pointing out those laws being applied everywhere from prosecutions through, well, hell the high profile transgender case before the SCOTUS just recently was based on civil rights law! Pretty powerful for a mute law.

You shouldn't surrender, but you should realize that it sounds like you're being goaded into a fight against a strawman.