> I'm not sure SCOTUS is "deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution."
Wickard v. Filburn was a mockery of the intent of the Constitution in all but name. And it's not the only case like that.
The problem with SCOTUS is that it can really do whatever the hell it wants. It's <em>supposed</em> to do the right thing, but because it is the final arbiter, they get to decide what the right thing is. Sometimes they do it in ways that are wrong in any other meaningful sense.
They're not the final arbiter, if the SCOTUS does something wrong the constitution can be amended to clarify or change the intent of the law. Then the SCOTUS will be beholden to that constitutional amendment.
That there isn't political will to routinely do this in response to bad SCOTUS rulings is not an inherent problem with the system itself.
The barrier to amend the constitution is so high, that it's virtually insurmountable in a highly partisan environment, if the ruling is itself partisan.
Wickard v. Filburn was a mockery of the intent of the Constitution in all but name. And it's not the only case like that.
The problem with SCOTUS is that it can really do whatever the hell it wants. It's <em>supposed</em> to do the right thing, but because it is the final arbiter, they get to decide what the right thing is. Sometimes they do it in ways that are wrong in any other meaningful sense.