"P.S. You seem quite knowledgeable of the Federalist papers. I am currently in a discussion about search and seizure with another FReeper. I have found the PA assembly discussions on the issue in the Anti-Federalist documents but can't seem to locate such a discussion from the Federalist side of the issue. Any pointers?"
This was a little opaque.
Which issue was a Pennsylvania Assembly discussing? Judicial review or something else?
As to the Federalist Papers view of what would prevent a runaway Supreme Court, my read is that the authors didn't really envision that could happen (runaway judicial activism was not a feature of Anglo-American history up to that point).
I think that what they probably had in their mind as the legislative break on a runaway judge was not legislative override of the court or restriction of legitimate jurisdiction, but rather, impeachment.
I think that the bigger concern was executive excess. What would happen if the executive abused his power. Impeachment was the answer.
Also, that funds could be cut off.
However, to maintain the independence of the judiciary, Hamilton pointed out that judges' salaries could not be reduced at all by Congress, so that the power of the purse did not limit judicial independence.
I think, in truth, nobody dreamt that the judiciary would be able to go as far as it has, because powerful judges were not in their experience, and they did not know how strong the "cult of law", raising the concept of law practically to the point of idolatry, would so deeply sieze hold of the American mind.