Nonsense, they do it all the time.
In 1954, the Supreme Court issued their decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, et. al. It didn't suggest that maybe the Kansas and Virginia and South Carolina and Delaware and D.C. maybe ought to look at their discriminatory laws. That ruling struck down all laws segregating schools by race and made it illegal in all the states.
In 1974 the Supreme Court issued their Furman v. Georgia decision. That decision didn't suggest that states might want to re-examine their capital punishment laws, it struck down the death penalty in every state of the Union and forced them to write new ones.
In 1967 the Supreme Court issued their decision in Loving v. Virginia. In it the court ruled that a ban in interracial marriage was unconstitutional, and at the same time it did not strike down all of Virginia's marriage laws. It just struck down those parts forbidding interracial marriage. And that ruling applied to all states with similar laws.
We can certainly debate the wisdom and logic of the Obergfell decision. But the idea that the Supreme Court cannot strike down a state law or part of a law as unconstitutional is patently false.
And where does this authority come from Ms Dawg? Because it is nowhere to be found in the United States Constitution. Or is there an amendment somewhere that states that a majority of 9 unelected Americans rule 300 million plus Americans absent their consent?
Furman v. Georgia encroaches upon the authority of the jury. It exemplifies one of my points, that allowing USSC bad behavior guarantees future bad behavior.
Prior bad acts do not justify other bad acts.
***it struck down the death penalty in every state of the Union and forced them to write new ones.***
That is exactly what has yet to happen here. The laws on the books in states that do not recognize SSM are null and void. The State Legislatures must(in the opinion of SCOTUS) convene and re-write their marriage laws.
The Supreme Court cannot write their laws for them.