Are you actually referring to my belief that the court may not rewrite the Constitution at will? As John Taylor noted nearly 200 years ago (IIRC), the word 'supreme' is used twice in the Constitution, once in reference to a federal court, and once in reference to the Constitution itself. Are you suggesting that five members of a court are 'supreme' over the United States Constitution? Or would you agree with Thomas Jfferson, James Madison (and yours truly ;>) that the Constitution is 'supreme' over the court?
You've got two choices, sport - tell us where you stand. Is the court 'supreme,' or is the written law of the land 'supreme?'
I would disagree with your contention that you are the person tasked with deciding what is Constitutional and what is not.
The Constitution is indeed supreme - over all the branches of government as well as the states themselves. Article III gives the the jurisdiction for interpreting and applying the Constitution to the Supreme Court. The fact that you may disagree with their interpretation does not make you right and them wrong. Nor does it mean that their decisions are in keeping with the intent of the founders in every case. But their decisions are binding. It is an imperfect system but what is the alternative? Hard as it may be for you to understand, not everyone is blessed with the same...unique view of the Constitution as you have. So what do we do? Allow Congress to have 535 interpretations? Allow the states to have 50? Leave it in the hands of the President? Or give it all to you?