Can someone please explain the logic?

This is not regarding illegal situation in my life, I'm trying to understand how we have a system of laws dependent on an entire apparatus that is contrary to what the Constitution and the Supreme Court actually says about the situation.

To the best of my understanding the Constitution is the supreme law of the land everyone admits that, no one has the right to violate your rights everyone admits that, no law which violates your rights may be a valid law, and any government official who violates your rights is operating under the color of law and has no immunity.

But then a judge declares they have immunity outside of the actual mechanisms of something being a law and because nobody who benefits challenged it, it's somehow becomes a valid law?

We have clearly established rights according to the Constitution and the definitions of words at the time but because the Supreme Court has another standard of a clearly established right, they somehow now are the arbiters of what clearly established rights are, and every right is required to have a remedy except somehow when gov authority or corporate rights (which is the equal protections of the 14th amendment) and using contract law and misrepresenting a word in the Constitution which materially affected the outcome of the case that wouldn't hold up without that misrepresentation to which modern law calls frivolous & fraud on the court, w/o statute of limitations.

And because of this equal protections law now corporations who have products that are regulated by government agencies who have determined safe toxicity levels, even though "I just poisoned him a little bit" isn't a valid legal defense and I have the right to not be poisoned a little bit, there is no law or authority to declare (what legal standards call manslaughter deliver it and difference assault) as a civil infraction instead of the crime that it is.

So they hide themselves behind equal protections but then use it as an ability to protect themselves when they choose corporate profits and greed over the safety of their products as the government says you can't arrest a corporation but corporations are people? (300 million poisoned pfas forever chemicals, tens of millions permanently harmed or loss of life)

Then you look at another agency in charge of financial issues and they have zero problem at all distinguishing the difference between a corporation and a person, meanwhile the agency in charge of protecting health and safety has a policy that shows the health safety has decreased as they've allowed more they charge money for it, isn't it a crime to charge a profit for someone's murder?

And since no government or person is allowed to violate your rights like that and immunity has no actual legal standing and they have a documented history & policy of historically raising the safe exposure levels to meet the output of the companies and their whole model is dependent on harm because without that harm none of it could afford to exist and they know with a reasonable expectation that the result of these things that have no legal basis according to their own rules and since everything has to be equal how can treating anything like this using rules that whenever valid prior and never valid after but only apply to this situation and situations that were created as a result.

And coincidentally enough one of the protections that have no real legal basis or standing they just have not been challenged is saying that you can't even present anything to the court unless it violates a clearly established right.

I'm pretty sure that people have the right to not be murdered as a matter of State budgetary policy, (just oxycontin alone more than doubled the murder rate of the entire United States in that same exact time.)

What does it mean when every single one of these connections that are associated to that if you counted how many laws and rules and rulings and constitutional limitations that say what an act is and what they're not allowed to do versus how many rules they call laws say it is, but then if you look at each one of those rules that say it is allowed each one of those rules don't even meet the standard of being a valid law not voted by the Supreme Court not enacted by Congress not granted by the Constitution?

The list that I could name off the top of my head this thing could just continue and continue and continue the point is you can directly attribute rights and egregious rights violations on a mass scale that cannot be ignored when you put the numbers together and you look at the actual facts so now isn't there standing to bring this issue to the Supreme Court and challenge the thing that they tried to prevent people from having ability to challenge?

Coincidentally enough if you look at the definition of secured and look at your rights then you look at a corporation's rights, and you look at all the limitations on government and compare it with the limitations the government imposes on you and you follow the trail the thing that has no real legal basis or standing and modern law and historic law has always said that it's illegal, is the actual connection where the inversion took place.

Does law only apply to us? Aren't there laws about laws applying to everyone equally? Aren't there rulings about laws being used as stated and something regarding when it is used outside of its stated purpose, yet the equal protections they have are not equal because we don't have those protections, and that's not even counting the fact that historically the 14th amendment challenges in court were used very seldomly and unsuccessfully to secure a person's 14th amendment right but used almost exclusively if you look at the actual success rate for a corporation's rights that they use to get away with all kinds of laws being broken and excused?