[Sudetenland]

Conceptually there is nothing wrong with his argument. The Constitution created three branches each with it's assigned area of authority, but once the Supreme Court arrogated the power of "judicial review" to itself, it upset the balance that the Founding Fathers carefully crafted.

Under "judicial review" the Supreme Court unilaterally decided that it could overrule the will of the people as made manifest by a majority of a democratically Congress and a democratically elected President--this quite simply is not in the Constitution and goes against the idea, as stated by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, that of the three, the supreme Court was expected to be the weakest of the three branches.

Now I can't say that I can think of any example where the President and the SCOTUS have or could get together to overrule Congress' decisions, but certainly the Executive and the Legislative should hold the authority (and do according to the Consitution) to restrain the Judicial.

If one has three "co-equal" branches, then theoretically, logically, any two could overrule the wishes of the third.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

and goes against the idea, as stated by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, that of the three, the supreme Court was expected to be the weakest

I suggest you go back and read the Federalist paper discussion on FR.

The Courts are the weakest because they are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate (thus ensuring judicial deference) and have no control over their budget. They have an equal power to negate any law congress passes and the President signs. Congress can decide not to pass a law. The president can veto it. The courts can overturn it. This is the system of checks that Madison thought would ensure liberty.

If one has three "co-equal" branches, then theoretically, logically, any two could overrule the wishes of the third.

They are co-equal in that each can check the actions by the other not because of some equal power of voting.