Thank you for the information. Since the SCOTUS is defined in the body of the Constitution as the arbiter of constitutional issues, I see no valid argument.
I do not believe the Founding Fathers viewed the highest court as a sort of secular Papacy, infallible on matters of the law. Were this the case, then we are establishing relativism respective to the proper interpretation of the core document of our national government. For example, in the 1890s, the Supreme Court regarded racial segregation in public schools Constitutional (Plessy v. Ferguson), while in 1954, the same body regarded such segregation as un-Constitutional (Brown v. Board of Education). The Supreme Court of the 1930s struck down numerous New Deal legislation regarded as un-Constitutional. Later Supreme Courts viewed the same legislation as Constitutional.
Let us remember, too, that in some instances in the 19th Century, presidents such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln refused to follow Supreme Court directives when they believed them to be incorrect. States also took action against Federal legislation that they believed to be un-Constitutional, as Virginia and Kentucky did with respect to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
As citizens, we have a duty to abide by the law, and obey it. Our duty does not mean the law is in all instances correct and conforming to the principles of our Founding Fathers.