You’re either being mischievous or disingenous, Rick.
First, I’m not aware of any threads where it was argued that the courts should be the ultimate legislators. Can you point me to posts by anyone who suggested, for example, that the people of Massachusetts couldn’t exercise their sovereign power to amend the state constitution and overturn the court’s decision? The ultimate legislator is the people themselves, and they have the power to overturn the decision if they wish.
Second, accepting that the courts have the power to interpret the constitution, whether state or federal, does not mean that one must always agree with the courts’ decision. Those are two entirely separate propositions. One can agree with the jurisdiction of the court to decide an issue under the constitution, and yet vigourously disagree with their exercise of their power in a particular case.
Third, yes, I would support the court’s decision in this case, if I’ve correctly understood it. In any system of multiple legal authorities, such as federal governments, state governments, county governments, and municipal governments, there has to be a mechanism to determine hierarchies of law and to resolve conflicts between different governments of limited powers. A municipality cannot ignore a state law, any more than a state government can ignore a constitutional provision. If a muncipality believes that a state law is unconstitutional, the courts are always open for the municipality to challenge the law. That’s what the rule of law is about, not everyone deciding for themselves which laws to obey, which seems to me to be what the mayor of SF did here.
Finally, as I understand it, this decision doesn’t touch on the basic issue of whether the state law in question conflicts with the state constitution. I’m curious to see how the California courts determine that issue.
All IMHO, of course.