[newzjunkey]

"Faithless" electors have been a thing, the problem is this means there will be no consequences if enough states join the "national popular vote" compact which nullifies the electoral college and would've ensured Hillary & Gore won.

The electors can either decide to vote as the state voters did or follow the compact.

[semantic]

You're getting close, but still a bit off. First, the so-called popular vote compact will be ruled unconstitutional because it violates the stipulation of guaranteeing to each state a republican form of government. That is, separate states cannot unilaterally create an inter-state mechanism to establish direct democracy. That's such a dead-in-the-water concept that it's an interesting take on why the promoters pushed it in the first place. My guess is to prompt awareness of the second point ...

However, you do point out an interesting 'wrinkle', in that electors could/can have always voted for the winner of the national popular vote. In fact, technically, electors could/can have ultimately voted for whomever they preferred. That being said, the ultimate fail safe is simple good faith on behalf of electors. And if that fails, individual state legislators of course have practically unlimited power to enforce decisions.

There's something unique about this case that I haven't fully investigated. The judge is clearly not ruling that state legislative bodies cannot control electors - that of course is entirely false. States are sovereign entities free to act as they please within broad federal constitutional guidelines. (If anyone doubts that, check out sanctuary states.) Rather, the opinion apparently is focused on a specific mechanism that in the judge's opinion fails some type of constitutional test.