"States have to obey the Supreme Court."
"States have to obey the Constitution."
Of course they have to obey the Constitution. But in practical terms of today's jurisprudence, the States are bound by the Supreme Court's decisions...have been since Marbury. So our theoretical ranting don't matter (ie, a state can't make abortion illegal until the Supreme Court says that's okay).
"So our theoretical ranting don't matter (ie, a state can't make abortion illegal until the Supreme Court says that's okay)."
Unless a state goes in a new direction and, on having its law struck down by the Supreme Court, simply defies the court and enforces its law anyway. This will, needless to say, touch off a national constitutional crisis, but it's not clear how that would play out. It would depend on the issue.
If the issue were one in which the Supreme Court took an extremely unpopular decision and a state defied the federal courts and did its own thing, it is by no means a slam-dunk that, in an election year, an incumbent party would automatically muster any sort of force, political or federal marshalls, to go out and try and enforce an unpopular Supreme Court order against that party's own electoral base.
Instead, the President might IGNORE the violation of the federal law. This happens all the time, on lesser issues. But if it were a great towering issue, that the public focused on, nullification would be seen to have WORKED, and the whole balance of power in the land would shift.