It’s not how the system has worked for the past 150 years or so. Rights recognized by the Supreme Court have been inviolable as far as I know. I can’t think o

It’s not how the system has worked for the past 150 years or so. Rights recognized by the Supreme Court have been inviolable as far as I know. I can’t think of an instance in which the Supreme Court said you have the right to X while not immediately striking down a law that effectively violates that right. I’m not a legal scholar so I could be wrong. There are variations amongst the laws of the states but federal laws and federal rights generally take precedence over an individual state’s desires. There are exceptions but generally this is true. Louisiana wanted to have 18 be the legal drinking age but the federal law that tied highway funding to making the legal age 21 effectively killed this desire by Louisiana and Scalia and others on the Supreme Court allowed this happen. It’s all a delicate balancing act between federal interest, states interests, and peoples’ rights. The Court is upsetting the balance that had been achieved and a new equilibrium will occur.