It's still not "beyond the pale" for someone to suggest Supreme Court rulings be ignored. For as long as SCOTUS has been around, there have been detractors. Whether with Dred Scott or Worcester v. Georgia or even 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges, there exist folks who would suggest the Court's rulings are wrong. However, throughout US history, the Court's rulings are usually enforced and abided by. The Constitution does say that judicial power in the US is vested in the Supreme Court (Article III, Section 1). Then under Article VI we find that the Constitution and laws are the supreme law of the land which everyone is held accountable towards. By logic, this implies that anyone who ignores a Supreme Court decision is in violation of US law and will suffer consequences for such actions.

What really cemented judicial review and acceptance in my mind was Marbury v. Madison back in 1803. There SCOTUS' scope was "established"-

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule.

In order for a society to exist, there needs to be a supreme law, and our Constitution mandated the Supreme Court be just that.

None of this is to say that SCOTUS rulings were always liked. Far from it. With decisions like McCulloch v. Maryland, plans were always thought of to curb the Court's power such as transferring appellate decisions to the Senate for review or to require a 2/3 majority for decisions involving constitutionality. But regardless of the outcome, the general consensus has- and will continue to be- that the Supreme Court is the law of the land until our Constitution is amended otherwise. Even with Dred Scott, Lincoln said (emphasis added)-

We know the court that made it, has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it overrule this. We offer no resistance to it.

I also feel it's important to understand the relationship between SCOTUS, states, and the Constitution at two points in US history. Prior to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, the First through Eighth Amendments did not apply to states. In Barron v. Baltimore, state/local government could take your property without just compensation; in US v. Cruikshank, state/local government could restrict your right to bear arms. Even freedom of speech and religion were up for grabs. With the Fourteenth Amendment, that began to change, but it really wasn't until Gitlow v. New York in 1925 that SCOTUS began applying the Bill of Rights to states. In this sense, our Constitution really began applying to everyone and not just federal government application. Under incorporation, the idea of going against a SCOTUS decision made even less sense as it would imply not only ignoring the "law of the land" but also the ability to impinge the Bill of Rights, a feat which is likely political suicide.

Now as to specifics of what happens if folks suddenly start ignoring SCOTUS decisions en masse, that is anyone's guess. It has never happened and likely will never happen simply because some law must be considered supreme. If it came down to troops and violence to enforce decisions, it probably would, like if someone resisted arrest but on a much much larger scale. The outcome is quite scary to consider, which is why desired action against SCOTUS has most always been restriction/change of power rather than disregard. The Constitution allows for Amendments such that ignoring the Supreme Court can be avoided. The supreme law of the land must remain supreme, but that doesn't mean the law of the land can't change over time.

Sources - Besides all the court cases mentioned, check out The United States Supreme Court: Symbol of Orderly, Stable and Just Government from the American Bar Association Journal. It may be 50+ years old, but it still addresses this question in a way you might find beneficial.