"As I understand the problem, this is not a question of distribution of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial in the federal government. Rather it is a question of the power of the federal government in nullifying duly enacted state legislation."
You are correct, but let me make shorthand of the mechanics of defiance.
Let's assume that the States think that the Supreme Court has acted illegally, and does not have the power to issue this decision. A State planning an execution declares the Supreme Court's decision null and void, because the Court itself lacked the constitutional authority to make such a ruling.
So far, so good.
States have done that before. Arkansas' opposition to desegregation comes to mind.
It's what happens NEXT that federalizes the issue.
In the desegregation cases, the President (rightly) sent troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's order.
If a State asserted that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to rule that it cannot execute minors, because this is a matter of State Law NOT governed by the Federal Constitution, the question would be: what would the President do?
If he did nothing, the State would have defied the Supreme Court.
If he uses his federal Executive authority to compel the state to abide by the Supreme Court's decision, he will have effectively taken the position that either (or both)(a) the Supreme Court was right and (b) even if the Supreme Court was wrong, the States do not have any power to resist even illegal, unconstitutional abuses of authority by the Federal Courts.
Any act of defiance by a State would immediately force the Executive Branch into choosing between the State or the Supreme Court. It's a short step to a federalized issue, and I took that step without further analysis.
Here, I provided the next layer.
I am not actually suggesting that States, the President or Congress SHOULD defy the Supreme Court.
I am merely stating the reality, the fact: the Supreme Court of the United States is THE supreme power in this land. It has the ultimate veto, if it chooses to exercise it, over every other public or private act in this country, and has exercised that power for 165 years without ever having been successfully challenged even one time.
There is no LEGAL solution to the issue, because the precedent is deeply set that EVERY legal issue is ULTIMATELY decided by the Court.
The only way that the Court can be limited in this regard, if it needs to be limited, is by a blank assertion of superior political or physical power: by direct defiance of a Supreme Court order that demonstrates the powerlessness of the Court's orders without the cooperation of the covalent branches of government.
The only branches of government that have attempted to defy the Supreme Court since the Civil War have been the States, but the issue was racial segregation, and the States' positions were so morally egregious that they needed to lose and most people sided with the Supreme Court.
This, of course, only reinforced the ultimate and final authority of the Court.
If one is content with the Supreme Court really being the Supreme Power in the land, one need only support the status quo.
If one is not, then one must seek an opportunity for political defiance on an issue where the Court's position is held by a minority of people, and the majority are offended by it.
The Court is not going to limit itself.
That is simply a pipe dream.
Are you a lawyer and/or a historian?
What do you think of my idea of a law or constitutional amendment removing lifetime tenure for federal judges?
Thanks. I get it. Great summary of what you were driving at. Now, I need counsel on whether to slash my wrists or not. By extension, does this mean that "judicial activism" is also a self-existent reality and unstoppable?