Why does the Supreme Court tend to avoid invalidating laws?
The Supreme Court cannot invalidate laws only the President has thic nower

Scholars spend a lot of time considering the legitimacy and implications of the Supreme Court striking down federal laws by use of judicial review. Similarly, there is a large literature focusing on the Court’s power and obligation to manage the federal judiciary through its certiorari powers over its own docket and its ability to reverse lower courts. There is almost no work, however, that examines the interplay of the Court’s judicial review powers and its managerial authority. Scholars have overlooked this intersection because they implicitly understand the power of judicial review and the federal hierarchy as institutions based on vetoes. On this account, the Court takes a judicial review case to veto either Congress or a lower court. This suggests that the Court should never take a case in which it affirms a lower court and upholds a federal statute. This account is (almost) entirely wrong. Using a new and comprehensive dataset, we show that throughout its history, the Court has affirmed the lower court and upheld the statute in the plurality of its judicial review decisions. The box that current theories predict should be empty is actually the fullest.

it should be c, women were allowed to vote in all states because federal law supersedes state law.

"states can make their own laws, as long as they don't contradict what the federal law states. the states do not have the authority to pass a law that negates a federal law." -google

i dont believe in religion. lets all be peace