Oh, I don't know. Maybe because it's worked for 200+ years?
Plus, an overzealous USSC can be reined in by either the Executive branch or the Legislative branch, if necessary.
So what's your problem, other than you like to whine a lot? You got a better idea, let's hear it.
Non sequitur. Your position has been that there's no "right" or "wrong" interpretation of the law. You weren't saying that there should not be a "right" or "wrong" interpretation, only that there isn't such a thing. So you were attempting to describe what is, not whether it ought to be. A description of what is is either correct or incorrect.
Again, you've stated that the courts are the final arbiter of the Constitution, and the only proof you've offered is that they've declared themselves to be the final arbiter of the Constitution. That is circular reasoning. Do you have any way at all of breaking the circle, by starting with a premise that's different from your conclusion?
Plus, an overzealous USSC can be reined in by either the Executive branch or the Legislative branch, if necessary.
And how are they going to do that if they have no way of determining whether SCOTUS is being overzealous? If SCOTUS is the final authority on the meaning of the law, who is anyone else to say that they're wrong?