Judicial review is the last potential wall between a minority of the people and the tyranny of the majority.

Without Judicial Review, Christianity would be the official religion of 50 different states.

This would be an ugly country without Judicial Review.

women who can get abortions, gays who no longer can get arrested for sodomy, and a host of other unpopular people.

But you cherry picked decisions that you approve of. What should happen if the SCOTUS overturns those very same laws like they did with Citizens United. As the SCOTUS gives, it may also take away.

The founders put more faith in the people than a body of appointed for life judges. People thru their representatives and president can change laws. But once the all mighty SCOTUS has spoken, it takes a Constitutional Amendment to correct the error.

they just can't be enforced due to the SCOTUS ruling. Anti abortion laws are still on the books of about two dozen states, again unenforcible thanks to SCOTUS. The fact is only one state has granted marriage rights to gays without a court decision first. (that was New Hampshire). Oh, and in half the states we would still be executing kids without judicial review but since most of them were black the majority doesn't give a fuck.

Should there be greater checks on the Supreme Court? Possibly. Right now the checks are: presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of justices, and constitutional amendments.

It may not be what they intended but is there a better solution?

No matter what the system is, there will bad decisions, and there will be good ones.

having the people decide thru their representatives is the best way. If the people make a mistake they can correct it fairly easily. They can vote out rouge Congress-critters and/or presidents. But once the all mighty SCOTUS has spoken, that's it. Constitutional Amendments are brutal.

Although if there were no Judicial Review, there would ne no Citizens United decision.

Someone or some body has to be arbiter, otherwise, it's chaos.

have to do our best.

...to determine the Constitutionality of laws.

They took that power.

Pretty clear evidence that the Founders didn't want this.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"

These are the words that stand out to me wrt the powers given, "to ALL Cases, in Law and Equity..."

I don't see where one can find "Pretty clear evidence that the Founders didn't want this" at all.

believed that the Constitution must maintain a certain flexibility to allow government to respond to changing circumstances in an efficacious manner. The "originalists" are simply full of shit. If anyone knew what the founders "wanted" it was Marshall. He was present at the creation.

They have been dead for centuries. The gave us something to work with and it is up to us, the current citizenry, to do what we can with it. To the founders I say, thank you, we will take it from here.

There must be a final arbiter somewhere.

M v. M is problematic, but less problematic than every other conceivable approach to the problem.

John Hart Ely's "Democracy and Distrust." Great book. I believe Ronald Dworkin has also addressed the subject at some length, but I can't remember which of his many books it was in.

The role of the Judiciary to determine constitutionality is critical to our system of government.