I wanted to break up my reply to you in two sections. Your example of judges telling local schools what to do based on the first amendment is flawed. The federal government does have a right to protect the first amendment if it is being violated in a public school.
The problem with the federal judges are that they are misinterpreting the original intent of the freedom of religion clause in the first amendment. The clause says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
This was put in not to protect the government from religion, but the people from a state sponsored government religion. Our founding fathers did not want a system set up like England whereby the government proclaimed the state religion to be the Church of England (Episcopals).
If a bunch of students want to have a prayer meeting before school or something like that, the federal judge should be protecting the state or federal government trying to prohibit them. It is the judge misinterpreting the first amendment that you are angry with, not the first amendment.
That is true today. It wasn't always the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court also "protects" the first amendment by declaring that nude dancing is "speech" and now every state must allow it. They have also declared political ads 60 days before an election to NOT be protected speech. Go figure.
They have declared abortion to be a protected "right" that every state must now honor. Homosexual sodomy must also be allowed by every state. Private property taken by corporations? Sure, that's eminent domain.
It's not so much that the U.S. Supreme Court is misinterpreting the constitution. It's the fact that their decision affects every state rather than just federal law. Five justices run the entire United States. NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind.