It did not give the SCOTUS carte blanche to "interpret the law". The do have the power to decide everything I just described above and to make sure that the rulings fall within the boundaries of the Constitution...but in no way were they or any appeals court every set up to "interpret the law"...or the Constitution for that matter.
Don't agree with you on this. The Judicial branch interprets law. That is their function.
I will say that the framers left out anything saying that the USSC is the law of the land for good reason, they were as concerned with judicial overreach as we are today.
Imagine a worse case scenario for Judicial overreach:
1) USSC makes some interpretation that defies common sense and logic
2) Congress moves to impeach USSC justice
3) USSC declares impeachment unconstitutional
4) People try to elect anti-USSC judges
5) USSC declares those elections unconstitutional
6) and so on and so forth
Now you may laugh at me but this kind of thing happens in Venezuela on a daily basis, where the courts are stacked with Marduro cronies.
What happens when USSC declares taht illegals have the right to vote? Or that citizens of other nations have the right to vote?
What happens when the USSC declares the constitution itself unconstitutional? The electoral college goes agianst the principle of "one man one vote" right? They already ruled that way for state legislatures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._SimsLots of what-ifs and hypotheticals, but you cannot place absolute faith in 9 robed humans.
The USSC has made some kooky judgement in years past.
There is a movement to nullify this election. Frankly I'm actually rather nervous about it. I could see liberals leaning on Ginsberg and the wise latina to do God knows what.