In his endorsement of Donald Trump, Wayne Grudem's argument centered on the fate of the Supreme Court. He did a good job of detailing judicial policy if Hillary is elected.
There is, though, a problem with that argument. What if Trump loses? Grudem doesn't offer any backup plan in that eventuality.
Conservatives need to remind Americans that the Supreme Court doesn't enjoy unconditional authority. The very notion that 300 million Americans should automatically genuflect to whatever 9 (or simply 5) unelected judges dictate is utterly servile. Why would 300 million Americans allow 5 unelected judges to tell them how to live their lives? It's childish. Why should we be so obedient?
I'm not suggesting that we should flout judicial rulings we dislike. My point, rather, is that when judges issue rulings that have no basis in the text, logic, or history of the Constitution, such rulings should be ignored.
The only legitimate authority the judiciary has is Constitutional authority. The judiciary can't invoke Constitutional authority for rulings that have no basis in the text, logic, or history of the Constitution. That's just make-believe. Everyone is supposed to pretend that's a Constitutional right even though everyone knows it's not. Why play that game? Why go along with that transparent charade?
I'm not suggesting that individual Americans should buck the judiciary. That's a losing proposition. Rather, there needs to be mobilized resistance, especially among civil magistrates.
A system of checks and balances is an honor system. It only works if the three branches play by the rules. If one branch refuses to abide by its Constitutional charter, that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. In our form of gov't, we cede authority to the state on condition that the state respects the ultimate will of the public as expressed through its elected representatives or direct democracy (e.g. ballot initiatives and referenda).