The US supreme court should not exist in the way it does now

I will begin by rebutting my opponent's contentions.Rebuttal of Contention One:My opponent's main gripe is that the supreme court, having the amount of power it does, could arbitrarily declare a law unconstitutional for any reason. They then use the cases Roe v Wade and Obergell v Hodges as evidence. There are many problems with this.Firstly, the Supreme Court does not have this ability. What they do have is the power of judicial review[1], wherein they can decide cases brought to the Supreme Court, and in effect, make interpretations on how the Constitution applies to these cases. Oftentimes, this is done to overturn previous decisions and support new ideas, as in Brown v Board. However, the Supreme Court does not have the power to arbitrarily make any decision on any law they want. They must wait for a case to be appealed to the Supreme Court.Secondly, any arbitrary declaration of constitutionality would certainly fall along partisan lines, which would make it impossible to simply declare something and be done with it. The division among party lines means that both sides of the argument will be represented in the decision, and further that if a precedent is overturned, that there will be a very good reason for it.Thirdly, the cases that my opponent mentions as being evidence for being unrelated to the Constitution make it clear that my opponent has not actually read the rulings for these cases. Both of them have support from the Due Process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution.Roe v Wade:"In Roe, this Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects, under certain circumstances, a woman’s decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term." [2]Obergell v Hodges:"The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex...The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." [3]Claiming that these cases have nothing to do with the Consitution is absurd.Rebuttal of Contention Two:My opponent's problem here is that because the Supreme Court is divided among party lines, oftentimes the decision of one person can decide a case. While this is true, it is certainly not the norm. This idea that the Supreme Court is ideologically divided and that one person can tip the scales on their own whims may be true for a small minority of cases, but it is in general not true. As it turns out, most Supreme Court decisions tend to garner agreement between judges. [4] Even the highly controversial and partisan Obamacare was supported by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision.This is because the Supreme Court Justices are not party figureheads. They are appointed for their law experience, and in most cases make their decision not on their party affiliations, but on what seems to them based on their legal knowledge to be constitutional. While this can be party-influenced, it is certainly not party-driven.Having rebutted my opponent's arguments, I will now present my own arguments in favor of the aspects my opponent argued against.Judicial Review Judicial Review is the most important power of the Supreme Court, as it allows the court to interpret the will of the Consitution and explain how it applies to specific cases. The Constitution is an ambiguous document sometimes, and so it is important to be able to draw a line to where certain aspects do apply and where they don't. For instance, in 1969 the case Tinker v Des Moines centered around the issue of whether or not the wearing of an armband was protected under the First Amendment as free speech. The Supreme Court ruled that it did, ironing out an otherwise ambiguous law. [5]Judicial Review is also essential for the progression of equal rights. During the former half of the 20th century, the Supreme Court played an inclemental role in the breaking down of legal discrimination against blacks in the United States in several landmark cases including Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board of Education. Were the Supreme Court not able to play its role in establishing how the Constitution applies, equal rights among minorities and women would be set far back from where they are now. [6]Size of the Supreme Court This issue weighs in less because I've mentioned that the Supreme Court is not partisanly divided, but there are a few reasons to have a small Supreme Court.One: Smaller groups avoid gridlock. The United States congress is infamous for being unable to decide on nearly anything at the moment due to its polarization. The larger a group is, the more it is paralyzed by partisanship. Keeping the Supreme Court small encourages decisions to be made.Two: The Supreme Court is not imposing laws. In a democracy, the will of the people is used in the decision of what laws to make. However, the the Supreme Court is not making laws. The Supreme Court is using their legal expertise to decide what those laws mean. As confusing as law can be, any legal statement has a logical conclusion, so on most issues, the court agrees (as I've mentioned before).My opponent's objections are ill-informed and insubstantial.[1]http://tinyurl.com...[2]http://tinyurl.com...[3]http://tinyurl.com...;[4]http://tinyurl.com...[5]http://tinyurl.com...[6]http://tinyurl.com...;