"Well who is the arbiter then?"
It depends on the issue. In the Griswold case, Connecticut was the rightful arbiter. Now it's up to the SCOTUS to decide. They gutted the Constitution and found privacy rights where they did not exist.
Why do you claim that Connecticut was the rightful arbiter and the SC had no right of review. Which privacy rights did they find that don't exist in the constitution? Do you argue that no privacy rights exist in the constitution? Have you actually read the Griswold decision in its original, rather than just rely on what it's detractors say about it? What do you think the fatally wrong argument is?