How's review going in the North East, where their Supreme Courts are dictating to the legislatures what type of laws they must pass. But as I said before, the reality on the ground is that the SC is the uber-branch. What can we do from this point forward to restrict the insertion of judgment for the constitution, e.g. O'Connor decision that Affirmative Action was counter to the constitution, but OK because she felt it served a good purpose. The same could be said of any law, and I'd prefer the elected officials make the decision of whether its a good idea or not.
The only way to get that is going to be to convene a Constitution Convention and re-write the Constitution to make this a pure representative democracy, or have a revolution and start over.
As it stands, we are at least in theory a constitutional republic with a national government of limited powers enumerated in the Constitution, subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. That check is the only thing between our constitutional republic and a pure representative democracy. Removing it will substantially alter the architecture of the Republic.
Testing 1, 2, 3.