> Laws are allowed until the Supreme Court rules on them

No, they aren't. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional ab initio, and lower courts can and do refuse to enforce laws on that basis, and the Supreme Court may never even get to rule on them since appeal to the Supreme Court is not by right; the farthest that cases in the federal system get by right is the Court of Appeals.

>and lower courts can and do refuse to enforce laws on that basis

Courts don't enforce laws, but I get what you mean. I have no confidence whatsoever that appellate courts will do anything about these laws. There has been a willful, deliberate, strategic stacking of the judiciary starting in the early 2000s to get us to this place.

Sorry to repeat myself, but we really can't all sit back and reference our civics books as if this system is still functioning to protect us against these fucked up laws. It's over. Stare decisis is now at the whim of the political affiliation of the courts.

My understanding is that this can go to a federal court pretty quickly who can then rule on this and block it, and it can be appellead up to the Supreme court, but for the time being it will be stopped, then I am assuming the Supreme Court will defer to whatever the appellate court decided because it is so open and shut.

>I am assuming the Supreme Court will defer to whatever the appellate court decided because it is so open and shut.

Out of curiosity, what about the current makeup of appellate courts in this region + the Supreme Court makes you think this is going to get shut down quickly?

I can't predict the future, but I also will point out if it gets to the SC it won't be now, it will be the SC 10 years from now.

That being said I would hope this is an open and shut enoght case under the 1st Amendment and the Interstate Commerce clause to justify this. Which I would hope overrules personal agendas in the court.

I know a lot of people are upset with the overturn of Roe v Wade, but even the initial judges in that case said the constitutional ground that case was ruled on was shaky, which my understanding is the basic job of the SC is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Now decades of an activist judiciary have distorted that concept as the legislative branch has chosen to abdicate their responsibility for their own gain, but the fact still stands, congress should be making the laws and the courts deciding if they are constitutional.

> Now decades of an activist judiciary have distorted that concept as the legislative branch has chosen to abdicate their responsibility for their own gain, but the fact still stands, congress should be making the laws and the courts deciding if they are constitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality the first time. If it’s up to Congress to make the laws, then why did the Supreme Court intervene this time? They could have kicked this back to congress and said: “We already ruled on this. If you want a different outcome, do your job.” But they didn’t.