> the ruling will be enforced if there is a consensus that it is a just ruling

The Supreme Court regularly makes rulings that are contrary to popular opinion. I see no evidence that the rulings are not being enforced despite the lack of consensus that they were just. They also regularly make rulings that align with the slight popular majority but the popular opinion is still about evenly split with no clear consensus one way or the other, and those rulings are enforced as well.

Following unpopular laws is itself a consensus, one where abandoning the rule of law altogether is seen as more harmful than enforcing one unpopular ruling.

You've now defined "consensus" as "anything you don't stage an armed rebellion over" ... which doesn't seem like a useful definition at all.

I'm not seeing anyone staging an armed rebellion over this definition...

How is it a consensus when people on the losing side often respond with violence, riots or protests? Lacking effective means to overthrow the government hardly implies agreement.

The current Supreme Court is hard right and currently under Executive Mandate, I wouldn't put anything past them if their overlords demand something of them.