Sure, everyone actually has that "power", though of course, certain judicial officers' opinions have more of an effect on society than other people's. Suffice it to say, it's their job to make such determinations, moreso than anyone else.
Did the Court actually make that factual finding itself - that the literacy tests were in fact being used to discriminate against blacks? Or did the Court just accept that fact as accurate because Congress declared that Congress had found that fact to be true? Should the Court just accept the accuracy of Congressional findings? As a practical matter, does it have any choice? How could the Court independently determine the accuracy of Congressional findings?
A few things need to be cleared up. First of all, the supreme court has no power to determine findings of fact, but only whether or not the law was properly applied. Secondly, enforcement is a fundamentally executive and judicial, not legislative, function. When the Constitution gives Congress the power to enforce anything, it's not overriding Articles II and III; it's simply giving Congress the power to empower the proper executive and judicial authorities to do their job in enforcing the law - particularly by specifying what the consequences should be for violating it. It does not give Congress the power to pass new restrictions on activity, or to actually conduct investigations and proceedings themselves.
Now, although SCOTUS can't make any determinations of fact themselves, they can examine the proceedings of lower courts, to determine if the rules of presenting and examining evidence were properly observed. But there has to be a lower court ruling to begin with, which there apparently wasn't, in this case; Congress decided to become judge, jury, and executioner all on their own, which, IMHO, is flagrantly unconstitutional. The proper way of handling it would be the same way government handles any discrimination complaints in the private sector: by having the proper (Congress-appointed) authorities investigate to determine whether or not unlawful discrimination is occuring, and to take appropriate corrective action in those particular cases where it is found to be occurring.
Well, the power of the Supreme Court to declare or treat an act of Congress as unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable was not deemed to be obvious to everyone when Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803. I don't think that you will find that power to be clearly provided for in the Constitution. Moreover, I think that the lack of any clear textual support for that power is very helpful in understanding why the Court has for the most part exercised that power more sparingly than it might have exercised a power for which there existed clear constitutional authority.
A few things need to be cleared up. First of all, the supreme court has no power to determine findings of fact, but only whether or not the law was properly applied. When the Constitution gives Congress the power to enforce anything, it's not overriding Articles II and III; it's simply giving Congress the power to empower the proper executive and judicial authorities to do their job in enforcing the law - particularly by specifying what the consequences should be for violating it. It does not give Congress the power to pass new restrictions on activity, or to actually conduct investigations and proceedings themselves.
Now, although SCOTUS can't make any determinations of fact themselves, they can examine the proceedings of lower courts, to determine if the rules of presenting and examining evidence were properly observed. But there has to be a lower court ruling to begin with, which there apparently wasn't, in this case; Congress decided to become judge, jury, and executioner all on their own, which, IMHO, is flagrantly unconstitutional. The proper way of handling it would be the same way government handles any discrimination complaints in the private sector: by having the proper (Congress-appointed) authorities investigate to determine whether or not unlawful discrimination is occuring, and to take appropriate corrective action in those particular cases where it is found to be occurring.
None of our branches can perform its function without making factual determinations. How can the Congress be expected to appropriate funds for the construction of a new post office in your city without first making the factual determination that a new post office is needed? And if there already exists two post offices within one block of your home and the Congress decides to build another post office on your block, do you think that the judicial branch has the power to decide that the Congress is mistaken in its factual determination that the third post office is necessary?
And if the Congress were to make a factual determination that too many traffic accidents are caused by vehicles which are colored red, white and/or blue rather than green and based on that finding passed a law requiring that all postal trucks be painted green, do you think that a court has the power to decide that the Congress's factual determination is incorrect and that blue postal trucks would actually be safer?
This is the essence of the problem that is faced by any Supreme Court which wishes to be an "activist" court and decide that Congressional acts are in excess of the Congress's constitutional powers. If the Congress makes the factual determination that certain states are using literacy tests to deny or abridge the right of citizens to vote based on their race and that it is necessary to suspend the literacy tests in order to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment, what legitimate procedures exist for the Court to determine that the Congress's factual determinations are incorrect?