This doesn't set back fascism a little, just reveals it a little (and when the populace doesn't care, then those are not both one and the same). And too many laws is bad, but, at least at the amount that we have, that's not what's leading to uneven enforcement.
A couple of the earlier comment-leavers (I didn't read all of the comments) touched on the problems:
[...] illustrates the contempt with which government agencies treat the law and the citizenry.
Politics supersedes the law. The “rule of law” now means “who rules, makes up the laws.” The legal framework that stabilizes a society has been thrown out [...]
One of the reasons we have uneven enforcement is because we have a ruling class in this country. It is comprised of those on the Left who are in power, and that is politicians as well as government employees (and which would be almost all of those), plus those of the Republican party in power who partially align with them, plus those on the Left in prominence in the news and entertainment media.
See what the criteria are. Power, or prominence. As Andy Stern once said (about the Leftist movement in general), paraphrasing, we'll either use the power of persuasion or the persuasion of power. Republicans out of office, no matter how sympathizing to the Left, have no use to them. And do you think either of your two trolls here would get special treatment under the law, just for being good Lefties. Nope, because they have neither.
And what that charlatan so-called leader of labor (as a worker, he represents me about as much as Al Sharpton represents much of those who are Black) said points to the other problem. It's what's also in the meaning behind the Left's "elections have consequences".
It's the mindset/political philosophy of having total disregard for stability and agreed-upon things and a system of rules and laws. That if I "win" (because to them, governing is a reward (and the most rewarding thing you can do, morally)), either through getting into power through elections or other means, or getting public opinion behind me through literally however I can, then I get to set the rules.
Then I should get to set them largely independent of precedent or existing systems of rules, is what it means to them. And therefore I should get to say when they apply. And when I'm a member of the ruling class, I say they don't apply to my class. (Without a whole class of people positioned to and dedicated to or complicit with moving the U.S. Leftward, favor could only be singled out based on familial or financial gain or other traditional grounds besides this secular religious movement one.)
And there you have it. Identify any holes if you care.