> Kicking the can to "elect someone else" is just as naive as claiming that this decision respects the law on the books.
But...it does respect the law on the books. Your concern seems to be that the law is bad, and that the judiciary ought to change that law. I don't think there's a lot of disagreement about the former, it's the latter that's more controversial.
From an idealistic standpoint, enacting Federal law is necessarily onerous, owing to the requirement of a strong consensus so as to prevent a marginal majority from shoving Federal laws down the throat of a large minority.
> Okay sure. But don't lose track of reality in your quest for idealism though.
Okay sure, it sounds like you don't care much for the idealistic standpoint, so let's talk pragmatism. If we can't gather this consensus at the Federal level, we have the levers of state legislatures to pass those same laws at a more local level.
Liberal states have the political will, the systems, and (if we're being frank) the majority of businesses that would be affected by Federal law anyway. They just need to have the will and pragmatism to compromise and pass their desired law at the state level until such a time that there's Federal consensus for that law.
