Those who know better than to hand over all power to a few criminals know that The Constitution was a Usurpation, and the Bill of Rights were a last ditch effort to salvage any remaining POWER of defense against criminals who Usurp the Power of Government.
Look at it this way, please:
If instead of one "Supreme Court" there were 50 State Supreme Courts, what POWER would be left in the hands of the People compared to this False Federal Usurpation where there is only ONE Supreme Court?
This is not hard to figure out either, so don't blame me for being the stupid one, please.
Take your good question and apply it to New York, and/or Pennsylvania, and/or Texas, on and on.
You can't do that, because you are trained to think that there is only One Monopoly Power, or you can start doing it now, because you take back some of your POWER over your own brain.
The concept of a Democratic Federated Republic was no longer a concept after 1776 as the concept, or theory, of a Free Market Market Place of Competitive Governments was made real under The Articles of Confederation and that lasted well enough up until 1788 when the Usurpers, Central Bankers like Alexander Hamilton, with his National Debt Fraud, and Monarchists, Slave Traders, took over with their Secret Meetings.
So my reply to your question is based in fact. You take your question and apply your question to an actual Free Market, or Liberated, Government, In Liberty, such as that example between 1776 and 1788, and apply your answers to New York, or Massachusetts, and the Supreme Courts in those Nation States, as those Nation States were United into a Voluntary Union, where each State could pay for, or not pay for, invest in, or not invest in, a Mutual Defense Organization, whereby that Pact, that organization, that Voluntary Union was good enough in Defense to aid the Defenders in Defense against the Largest Criminal Army of Aggression then on the Planet Earth, and soundly, but temporarily, remove their Criminal Behinds from these Lands called America.
If a Supreme Court in New York, which is a Law Power of some relative, competitive, measure does as you say, and I can quote, then that can be compared to failure to do so, as you say, in Massachusetts, or Vermont.
"If a request was made to the Supreme Court to rule on "The right of an individual to personally throw off an abusive usurpous government," what would be the positive and negative ramifications of such a ruling?"
You don't know the answer, you want an answer, you have your own competitive answer, or any combination of any amount of answers end up being the answer in POWER?
Take the case of Shays's Rebellion which are events that happened after The British were driven out and which happened before the Central Bankers like Hamilton took over with their Secret Meetings, and their Dirty Compromises with the Slave Traders. By the way, if you don't know by now, Central Bankers are slave traders, and they do not discriminate by color or race, anyone will do so long as they make something worth stealing.
Here is information on Shays's Rebellion:
Suppose that the people who were forced to produce Whiskey as their own currency, forced by The Criminals in Massachusetts who drove Gold out of the market place with their Fraud money, and suppose those people like Daniel Shays were then taxed for that competitive money by those Criminals who had then took over the Sovereign Nation State of Massachusetts, and taxes were to be paid in Gold that did not exist in those placed because it was driven out, and instead of those Revolutionary War Veterans like Daniel Shays returning to the unfinished Revolution, with arms, what if, instead of resort to arms, what if the Supreme Court of Massachusetts was not as corrupt as the Governor in Massachusetts, and your idea carried the Day in Massachusetts instead of Open Rebellion?
Would there have been, then, a move by the Central Bankers to conduct Secret Meetings and Hatch the Plan to Falsely Advertize the need for National Debt to be paid to a Consolidated Government Power that would then create, eventually after many failed attempts, a Central Bank Fraud with One Legal Money Monopoly Power?
Food for thought?
Do I address your question at all in your view?
No need to respond, I get that a lot.