The USSC was empowered to hear disputes between different states,case with foreign nations,and to review appeals from lower federal courts. Judicial review was something John Marshall pulled out of his a*s.
And the problem is, to paraphrase, Orwell, Marsall made one branch of government more equal than others.
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.