They did. They gave us a Supreme Court with original jurisdiction in suits between the states or by a state against the federal government, but the SC thinks they have discretion in choosing not to hear the case. Then they gave us a 2nd amendment.
“but the SC thinks they have discretion in choosing not to hear the case”
Yes, that’s a problem. They of course DO have discretion in cases outside their original jurisdiction. They don’t have to accept an appeal of a state supreme court or federal district court decision. But they really don’t have a choice to accept a case in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction (without cause), since that results in no legal recourse for the litigants and is a violation of the due process clause of the 5th amendment.
The activist Supreme Court created this mess with a couple of decisions in the 1960s. Called “One man, one vote” decisions, the Court said it was “unconstitutional” for state legislatures to be apportioned like the US Congress.
That is, the House is apportioned on districts by numbers of people, but the Senate is apportioned so that each state, regardless of size, get only two Senators.
This Supreme Court-created rule means that the large cities control the legislatures in most states. This is why Oregon counties want to split up and join Idaho. This is why Chicago rules the entire state of IL, etc, etc.
This is exactly what the ‘Rat Party is trying to do to the country. Abolishing the electoral college is part of that.