The thinking isn't flawed at all. The degree of action and reaction is meant to be measured and "timed" (easier to unelect a president, harder -- but not unreasonable -- to impeach a judge for political reasons).
Eternal debate is always settled, eventually, by force or threat of force.
Then why did everything else you wrote argue (correctly) AGAINST a final authority by arguing (correctly) for executive nullification a la Andrew Jackson in Worcester v Georgia (1832)?