Then why did everything else you wrote argue (correctly) AGAINST a final authority by arguing (correctly) for executive nullification a la Andrew Jackson in Worcester v Georgia (1832)?
Can you rephrase that? I don't clearly understand your point or question.
My point is that the Constitutional system of checks and balances necessarily permits SCOTUS to override Congressional law, and Congress to ovverride SCOTUS (via impeachment), and in between, the people intervene via elections.