“The Const says he cant”
But he nominates who decides what is constitutional and what isn’t. And then there is traitor Roberts...
That is blatantly incorrect -- for if the Constitution is what the [majority of] the Supreme Court says, then any dissent listed is contrary to the Constitution, and any decision based on a prior dissent is therefore also contrary the Constitution. -- Furthermore, the if the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, then any restrictions placed upon the Supreme Court by the Constitution are meaningless, precisely because the court says what the Constitution means.
Your statement advocates not a rule of law, but a rule of men.
Technically we are the final deciders of what the Constitution says, the final authority is preserved in the jury power to nullify laws even if the USSC says they are ok. Dread Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act are examples.
Then there are the owners....
Don’t mess with the owners of the country.