Many of them have little to do with the Constitution. If you have your way none of them will ever again. I'd prefer that they limit their deliberations to measuring current legislation against the original intent of the Constitution and those who wrote it.
That would be you. You are the one advocating USSC rule.
The USSC was intended and created as a check against the power of Congress. It was created and it's function laid out in the blueprint of the Republic - the US Constitution. If you don't like that arrangement, there are procedures to change it. If you have to mischaracterize wanting to hold to that arrangement as "advocating USSC rule" then you're wasting your time.
Absolutely. That's two houses of Congress AND the President. Opposed to your five buddies, that like to feel important. The additional benefit is that it is far more easily changed. The ability to make things right, is a definite plus.
The "ability to make things right" is and has always been there. There is no decision by the USSC that cannot be overridden by Amendment. We can explicitly make anything constitutional they rule is unconstitutional. It's not particularly easy, and it isn't supposed to be.
Without any independent review of the constitutionality of Congressional legislation, you're left with a pure representative democracy, not a constitutional republic.
Wouldn't that be nice. And when has that ever happened measuring from the time that they first started making themselves the Constitution in the 1930's. I have a better plan. Make them gods, embodied with no personal agendas or bias and able to pass perfect judgment. I'll take nine. Now back to reality.
The USSC was intended and created as a check against the power of Congress.
Were they asleep for the first 140 years? There is nothing in the Constitution about the Court being "more equal" than the other branches, and nothing about being final arbiter of the Constitution. The Constitution created the SC to be the ultimate arbiter of criminal and civil law, and to serve as a higher authority when states were in legal disagreement.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
That is authority to rule on cases of law, not to create, rewrite, or nullify the law. Again, if I'm wrong, why did the SC fail to act for 140 years?
We can explicitly make anything constitutional they rule is unconstitutional. It's not particularly easy, and it isn't supposed to be.
Like all the amendments on partial birth abortion that keep getting overturned? The supreme court has already shown that if an amendment goes against how they have define the Constitution, they will just ignore it, or strike it down before it can be ratified.
Without any independent review of the constitutionality of Congressional legislation, you're left with a pure representative democracy, not a constitutional republic.
So we weren't a constitutional republic from founding until FDR? The House is independent of the Senate and the Senate likewise, as is the Executive. All told they are 537 individuals that are just as likely to be constitutionally minded, as the 9 on the SC. Probably more so, as they have to answer for their votes, and signatures.