>>>
But it is their job to determine, in the cases that arise before them, whether the policies they're being asked to uphold are in fact consistent with the Constitution.<<<I can agree in principle that there are ways of dealing with unconstitutional rulings. I would still urge extreme caution, however, against all talk of impeachment of judges on the basis of their rulings.
There are really two categories of judicial review that are quite different from each other, at least in practice, but unfortunately they're often treated as one. The first is review of state policy. It is in this arena that modern judges are most deserving of the accusation of judicial activism. Certainly Roe vs. Wade and a host of other infamous rulings fall in that category. The federal courts never seem to tire of pushing states around at their whim.
The second category is review of federal policy. Here, the problem is exactly the opposite. Congress for decades has invaded the prerogative of the states, and abused individual rights (campaign finance, gun control, etc.), and the courts have let them get away with it time and again. Any talk of impeachment is clearly going to make that problem even worse.
Since the bulk of judicial activism concerns review of state laws, the best way for Congress to handle it, if they should be so inclined, is simply to cut off the courts' appellate jurisdiction over state laws, or at least certain categories of state laws. Let's not rock the boat more than we have to.