They don't "rewrite law". They rule on the constitutionality of laws. It's left to Congress to re-write them if necessary.
They are to do what all judges are to do. Try a case by the law and rule on it. They have many purposes all defined explicitly in Section 3. Do you think that had the framers intended the SC to have veto power on the legislature and executive that they would have been clear about it, like they were with the executives veto power, so that it wouldn't take 140 years for it to be understood?
Every Supreme Court in every State weighs State laws against the State Constitution, and will strike it down if it is found to be in violation. Only Supreme Courts do this. This job of Supreme Court judges, be they state or federal, is not like the job of lower court judges in either venue.
What changed under FDR was not that the judges ruled on the constitutionality of federal law, but the basis upon which they interpreted the Constitution.
There was no issue of a law being constitutional in Marbury v. Madison. It was a case of whether an incoming President could be forced to act on a previous President's promised commission. That's mechanical, not super-legislative. Like a legislator suing the whip for more time on the floor.
Marbury formally established the Court's role as the final arbiter of constitutionality.
Your understanding of the law is so self-serving that I must conclude that you are a lawyer. Which might explain your desire to be ruled by lawyers.
[The USSC has] authority to rule on cases of law, not to create, rewrite, or nullify the law. Again, if I'm wrong, why did the SC fail to act for 140 years?
Read Marbury [1803]. It is has been accepted since then that the 'appellate Jurisdiction' clause delegates the Court authority to nullify unconstitutional 'law', whether fed/state/local. Can you agree?
There was no issue of a law being constitutional in Marbury v. Madison. It was a case of whether an incoming President could be forced to act on a previous President's promised commission. That's mechanical, not super-legislative. Like a legislator suing the whip for more time on the floor.
From Marbury:
"-- Why does a Judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. --" Justice Marshall 1803
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"-- There was no issue of a law being constitutional in Marbury v. Madison. --" Only in your imagination S-man.
"-- how about an answer? You haven't bothered to have one of those in the last dozen or so posts.
Running away from the issue isn't a good sign for your argument's strength. --- How about being brave and making one? --"