If it were intended for the SC to have veto power, the Constitution would have required bills to go there for review before becoming law.
The quote I gave you from Marbury was written by Chief Justice Marshall, one of the Founders. I trust him to know what was "intended" a lot more than I do you.
In contrast to OConner's jurisprudence, I'll give you some from Clarence Thomas:
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
There's something directly releveant to the issue at hand. Tell me what you think is wrong with it.
What's wrong is that you don't have a court made up of like minded individuals. Have you noticed that Thomas writes mainly minority positions?
The Court is given far too much undeserved praise for being non-political, and an objective guardian of the Constitution.
I'd like to get back to your premise that the Court isn't really unchecked, because the People can always pass Amendments. First, you need to go off in a corner with tpaine and come to grips with your assertion that majority rule canceling out fundamental rights is OK, as long as its a super-majority. Now let's look at your assertion. If the People pass an amendment to the Constitution stating that black people can't vote, and the first case goes before the Supreme Court. The Court will strike down the laws created in the umbrella of the new amendment, because the laws are in violation of the preponderance of the Constitution, and there is no mechanism to stop that. Now I used a clear example, where the SC ruling was what we would all agree with, but the SC can do the same with anything.
Also please explain how you are protecting us all from the whims of the People, when a single election can result in a President who packs the court with zealots of a particular flavor who will rule for the next 40 years? Are you simply trusting statistics that 5 of 9 elderly people don't die within a four year, or eight year span? Or that the Senate and President are never like minded?