Back in the 1860s, America fought a civil war over states rights. While the touchstone issue for the North was slavery, for the South it was tariffs and other laws favoring the northeastern factories that mostly employed Irish people.
Naturally Abraham Lincoln, a student of the modern State in the European sense, found it easy to unite these new Irish voters against the mostly-Anglo South, and to use that to centralize government control with a Civil Rights Act which passed shortly after his 2500 fps lobotomy and death.
The sense in America — already divided by Irish diversity — was that if we did not force everyone into a false unity and conformity of action, the same methods at the same time, we would disintegrate and not be able to compete with modern nations.
Consequently law after the Civil War and during the world wars followed the same goal: strengthen federal authority, enforce it on the states, standardize everything, and therefore, create a sensation and sentiment of unity among the people of the nation.
Fighting dictators like Stalin and Hitler gave us a false view of what we were attempting to avoid. We assumed that the founding fathers tried to warn us off of dictatorship, but they were really trying to warn us away from infectious groupthink.
Infectious groupthink occurs when an idea becomes popular because it is lowest common denominator, after which point no one will refrain from emulating it because they want to be competitive with others who are using that idea. If something succeeds, everyone does it, even if not really relevant.
You can see infectious groupthink in America today. Even companies that make sump pumps and oil filters are advertising how they support LGBT gay pride month, BLM racial shakedowns, and other goodthinker topics.
Consequently, the Supreme Court is pushing back with a few momentous decisions, all of which favor resisting the herd and granting more power to local communities and states:
These cases came about for the most part in reaction to the seizure of the federal government by the Left and the rapid pace with which it has used presidential executive orders, unelected bureaucrat written regulations, and hastily assembled bills rocketed through a compliant House.
The Court exists to protect the Constitution. Therefore, when it sees federal overreach, it tends to pare it back by removing the crutches it uses to justify such power. Almost universally these have been 14A and § 1980 cases which enforce individual rights over state or local decisions via federal law.
However, as justices have hinted in the past, many of these laws were designed to fix perceived wrongs, not become eternal justifications for whatever power and money government wants to seize. By kicking these back to the states, the Court makes the voters choose on these hot-button issues.
This allows the Court to fulfill one of the purposes of the Constitution: it is designed to allow people to escape from being forced to comply with the latest trend of infectious groupthink. It allows states and individuals to break away from the herd.
Lincoln destroyed that, as did his party in subsequent years, with the Civil Rights act, much as the 1913 income tax obliterated what was left, since now people were required to fund all sorts of infectious groupthink programs that they would otherwise want to escape.
The Court has now affirmed that the Confederacy was indeed right about states rights. In order to avoid groupthink and socialist-style entitlements programs turned coercive, such as diversity, EMTALA, and the need to fund the diversity abyss, states need to make these decisions, not the fedgov.
If we are lucky, the Court will take aim at the expansion of civil rights as a blank cheque for abolishing all standards. If the next big case involves affirmative action, we could see a different America emerge quite shortly as people flee diversity and socialism.