And then the executive branch would have to enforce the decision prosecute them, and carry the decision out. Imagine if in the case of Romney in MA, he stands up to the MA Supremes simply by refusing to enforce their ruling. Could be interesting.
You illustrate my point. What you are speculating about would quickly deteriorate into either civil war or anarchy.
If the Governor can ignore a court ruling he dislikes, then so can I, so can everyone.
If I can ignore the judiciary, why can I not also ignore the legislature and the executive?
Coequal branches of government.
So9
Statutes were crafted against it because the people through their legislatures spoke, and laid down the law. The courts think they can strike down the legistlatures, and with it the will of the people. Scalia was mocked for predicting the anarchy that such a decision would wreak. I'll just bet he didn't think it would happen so fast.
The court does not have to be the last word on anything if Congress limits their jurisdiction, or if a ruling like the one in MA is so bad, the Executive Branch doesn't have the stomach to enforce it. Either of those two branches can draw a line in the sand. And it's about time too.
The USSC need look no further than the mirror to learn the source of the anarchy you seem to fear.
I don't fear what you do. BTW, it's not anarchy if a branch of government stands up to the Court. It's called "checks and balances." Supreme Court should not be confused in anyone's mind with the notion that they are "supreme" in the sense that they are over either the Executive or Legislative branches. They're not.
The homos may actually be the death of the powers that the USSC has wrongfully assumed to itself over the years.