I suggest you review the Constitutional checks and balances each branch has over the other two. The Framers were very clear: NO branch was ever intended to have “absolute” power. Perhaps, initially, the judicial branch may have seemed less powerful than the other two, but after Marbury v. Madison established the precedent of judicial review that perception was corrected.
Sorry, but I don’t buy it. The Founders intended the Congress to win any full out confrontation between branches. Possibly the term “absolute” was a step too far.
Congress can defund any executive action. It can remove from office any member of the executive branch. It can pass laws, and override a veto, limiting what the President can do.
Meanwhile, the President has only a conditional veto over any act of Congress, easily overridden by a united Congress. He has no power whatsoever over any member of Congress.
Congress can, as with executive officers, remove from office any judge it decides to. And it can define the areas over which the Courts have authority. (Admittedly this last has never been fully tested, so the limits of this power are unknown.)
IOW, a united Congress has something at least close to absolute power over the other two branches. Of course, Congress is rarely if ever as united as it needs to be to fully use these powers. Which means the power of Congress is checked and balanced more by internal factors than by powers granted by the Constitution to the other two branches.