If you're ignorant of the reasoning of the courts based on the 14th amendment which mandates homosexual marriage, it does not mean that they are not operating within legitimate range of judicial review. I also disagree with the decision but I do not say that it is tyrannical. Likewise, I disagree with the courts upholding Obamacare, I think it was wrongheaded, I think it was basically unconstitutional, but that does not make it tyrannical and that does not mean that the courts are controlled by the "oligarchy."
It is impossible to to argue with definitions like" lawlessness" or "oligarchy" which are not found in the dictionary. Just because you do not like what the process produces does not make it "lawless." It does not make judges or politicians "oligarchs." If they are trespassing good sense when they wield their "Pen and phone," or even transgressing the Constitution in doing so, that does not mean that in another context they will be empowered to trespass against explicit amendments of the Constitution. Just because the Supreme Court rules for Obamacare and upsets you doesn't mean the Supreme Court will feel empowered to reach out and commit some wrongdoing in an area in which its jurisdiction has been explicitly withdrawn by amendment. The entire context will have changed.
But let's assume that you are dark conspiratorial suppositions come to pass, let's go ahead with Article V and then fight your fight at least from higher ground, from a more explicit expression of the Constitution which makes the "oligarchy" explicitly rather than implicitly wrong which explicitly controls the court, which changes the process.
It is now time for you once again to say:
"DO IT"!
