It is a curious ruling. Essentially saying that A. Elections matter and B. Elected officials can ignore laws they don’t like, despite having the electorate pass them via legal referendum. I really don’t understand the thinking.
It reminds me of the fact that the police have no individual duty to defend you or protect you. The clearly don’t have the right not to act to prevent crime occurring openly and notoriously before their eyes. We just don’t give the executive that much leeway, do we?
I think it's more along the insidious lines of that ruling that Jurors indeed have the right of nullification, they just don't have to be told about that right — which has led to the exclusion of prospective jurors because they knew the law (and their authority/right) to the point that, right now, it's almost disappeared.
Indeed that, when combined with the presented/implied constraint that jurors must find someone guilty even if the law under which they are charged is invalid, is a powerful tool for judicial tyranny. (As is the idea that the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it does
.)