The idea that the judiciary is supreme is common nonsense. That idea is profoundly ahistorical and utterly at odds with constitutional principle, in Massachusetts and every other American jurisdiction. If the law means whatever a majority of the highest court says it means and the executive exists just to effectuate court orders, there isn't much point in carefully separating powers among the three branches of government. We might as well just save ourselves all those executive and legislative salaries and let the courts run everything. Constitutions could be a lot shorter.
Faced with a stark choice between faithfully executing the law and obeying a lawless court an honorable executive is bound by the law. Courts don't issue marriage licenses in Massachusetts. That's an executive function. Romney chose to allow his employees to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. That was his bad and he can't escape responsibility for it. The defense that the SJC made him do it is just pathetic.
If Romney had defied the court he might have been impeached or the legislature might have amended the law to conform with the SJC’s decision. Either way two branches of government could have combined to overrule the third. Or the legislature could have accepted Romney's decision and rejected the court's. That's separation of powers in action, three branches of government in a dynamic balance.
As it was, Romney punted, like the putz he is. He punted on health care too, and apparently he has yet to see the error of his ways. The man is a waste of good hair. If he tries to pimp himself around again in 2012 he won't even get as far as he did last time. It would be a pleasure to watch him waste another chunk of his fortune in more futile efforts to ingratiate himself with the electorate. Voters, like nature, abhor a vacuum
So, if DC said “forget the courts” and continued to ban guns, you’d be fine with that?