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.
If retirement savings are planned responsibility it should be a pot of money that you take with you from State to state like any other property.
No State should have the practical authority to do otherwise having not possession of the property.
The real key to maintaining interstate liberty is the very fact that States are not abridged to always respect the laws and demands of other states, particularly when those laws seem only designed to disadvantageous other states or rob people of their ability to flee with their resources.
It is thus much easier thing for Congress to Abolish barriers to interstate trade than to establish domestic order. One act requires a standing intrastate army the other simply requires that they occasionally take sides between two disputing states.
If on the other hand people decide to give their state Government full possession and control of their retirement plan that is no different than investing in the judgement of that Government.