That doctrine violates the very explicit intent of the Constitution. By its logic, courts could never challenge the decisions and acts of any legislature or chief exectuive, ALL of whose decisions are fundamentally political. It amounts to judges arbitrarily deciding that they will shirk their dirty when invalidating SOME political decisions, but not others. Not only is it shockingly hypocritical, it's Treason.
Explicit intent? Find for me the passage in the Constitution that explicitly reference "judicial review". Here's a hint - it's not there. The concept of judicial review was created out of whole-cloth by a guy names John Marshall writing the majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Later Courts - rightly - recognizing the limitations of their scope or power to review, have left to other branches of government certain tasks or procedures that are not dependent on Judicial intervention - the political question doctrine is one such example. We don't want judges deciding that a President - one that was properly elected, properly certified per the Constitution deciding that he's no longer the President. That's NOT what the Framers envisioned. Examining a President after he's been inaugurated is expressly left SOLELY to the Congress per the Constitution and the Judiciary plays NO ROLE in that process (see: Art II, Sec 4)