The difference is, you have a choice of fifty states in which to reside. When the Supreme Court makes up constitutional law out of whole cloth, it effects all of us.
*affects
(can’t believe I didn’t catch that)
My point is that opinions on state led SC nullification very often are seen through a prism of (a) issues the individual cares about and (b) current events.
While I may disagree with SCOTUS on some decisions as matters of law, both recent and historical, I also caution that the law of unintended consequences is universal.
.
It was mentioned that one may live in any state we choose. A perfect example.
SCOTUS rulings have shaped policy regarding how retirement benefits are taxed, which has prevented some states from effectively holding pensioners hostage via taxes. Further, the right to move freely between and among the states is a constitutional principal. What would keep a state from imposing an exit tax? A SCOTUS ruling to the contrary of such a law or policy could simply be ignored by the state in question.
.
It’s a dicey proposition with significant potential for state / federal confrontation.