And if Ben Bernanke IS running for office, but they make the same ruling, in an obvious breach of their own rules?
You're probably still screwed. You still can't display the Ron Paul signs. You might be able to force them to make your neighbor take down his signs too, but that's probably not what you really wanted.
The simple fact is that by allowing the federal government (via the supreme court) SOLE discretion in deciding what is and isn't constitutional, you make the constitution irrelevant. There's no sense in even having one. The federal government has absolutely unlimited power. This is OBVIOUSLY not what the founders intended. They wouldn't have wasted all those weeks precisely drafting a "charter of negative liberties" (as Obama calls it) if they really just wanted it to say "the federal government has all power to do whatever it wants to the states and the people in all cases whatsoever"
Well, on the practical side, a court is not a government and the US Supreme Court has had a pretty good record (you might be interested in what they said in Erie Railroad). The fact that the Constitution gives it the power to settle disputes between states indicates the framers thought that was the best approach wrt the federal government too. After all, a majority of the people in the country can force the federal government to change through the political process. And a supermajority of 75% of states (even without a majority of people) can ram through any changes they want by constitutional amendment. Thus, if the federal government does something, it can be presumed that there are states that want it, and the Supreme Court has been delegated power to settle that dispute.
On the theoretical side, giving state supreme courts final power is going to be even worse. Probably the best approach is to give states more input into the selection of US Supreme Court justices.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.