Under the Constitution, the Supremes may rule however they like and they have still established no law since Congress alone can legislate. Under the Constitution, the Supremes cannot declare an entire area of law as off limits to all the states unless that area is specifically delegated to the federal governmet or prohibited to the states by the Constitution. That requires a specific grant of power to the court and no amendment is necessary to stop the court from arrogating such power to itself.
You keep referring to passing new federal law. Why can't you cite the existing federal law which needs to be repealed or supplanted? It isn't that you haven't made your bizarre ideas clear, it's simply that they are wrong. Your view of the Constitution is that the federal government may do anything it can do as long as what they want to do isn't expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The exact opposite is the case: The federal government may only do what it is expressly granted power to do by the document and no specific prohibition is necessary.
Arguing from a false premise, as you and your fellow DFers always do, is maddening to those of us who know better than to accept your false premises in the first place. The fact that you boys insist on repeating the same falsehoods over and over in the face of the facts is annoying to say the least.