Nope.
If a case of the types you mention comes before the Court in the ordinary course of its business, and the Court is faced with a conflict between a federal law and the Constitution, it obviously must decide which of the two should be enforced. Equally obviously, it should be the Constitution.
Do you think otherwise?
Judicial review has obviously been wildly overused and misused, but the principal itself is implicit in the Constitution.
The most egregious examples of Court abuse of its powers, such as Roe v Wade, have little or nothing to do with judicial review as such. The Court in these cases isn't settling a conflict between the Constitution and a law, it's making things up and then claiming they were in the Constitution all along.
Sorry. The enumerated powers of the Supreme Court don’t include judicial review. And the concept of an “implicit”power is right up there with the Constitution as “living document”.
Exactly. In Roe v. Wade the Court implicitly inserted a right to privacy into the Constitution.
In other cases, such as Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court extrapolated language that was already in the Constitution and interpreted that it meant indigent persons were to be provided the assistance of counsel by the state. This was a correct interpretation, IMHO.
Still further, the Court has also taken the EXACT words of the Constitution and applied what it believes the Founders' intent was when drafting the Constitution - as in District of Columbia v. Heller [right to bear arms].
ALL of these opinions stem from Marbury v. Madison, where the Court asserted the right to judicial review. And it is this case that forms the bedrock of moral authority the Court enjoys as a check on the other two branches of Government ...