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

Before I begin, I would like to point out that what my opponent labelled as their Contention Two Counterrebuttal was in response to my rebuttal of his first contention, not his second. Also, he cannot have a Contention Three Counterrebuttal because he only made two contentions in the first place.In addition, my opponent completely dropped my rebuttal to their second contention. This is essentially a concession of that contention to me.With that out of the way, my opponent's entire case hinges on their first contention only.Here is a breakdown of their counterrebuttal."If an issue is a hot-button topic for long enough, it WILL eventually be put in front of the supreme court."If a case is brought to the Supreme Court, that means that there are people who wish to see the issue resolved. Ergo, the power on which issues will be decided is in the hands of the people who appeal, NOT the Supreme Court."American legislation can be ambiguous. However, the solution to this problem is not to put nine people in charge of interpreting it, but rather to make additional amendments to clarify it. The so called "problem", Con states that there would be if the legislative branch of government were put in charge of clarifying laws would not change."This is ludicrous.First of all, this would essentially give Congress both Legislative and Judicial powers, destroying the separation of powers. As I said before, having which issues decisions are to be made on be decided by people who appeal is far more representative of the will of the masses than a congressional decision, when many congressmen have their own agendas or are chosen as the result of gerrymandering.Second of all, and even worse, you are honestly suggesting that when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the congressmen who passed it should have had the foresight to include clauses on abortion and gay marriage, neither of which even existed as issues at the time. Congress does not have time to ponder every single possible case that might fall under the jurisdiction of an amendment at some point in the next 200 years. We do not know what issues will be appealed to the Supreme Court in 2135, and it would absurd to attempt to pass amendments speculating on that. In addition, congress is already gridlocked and has enough trouble passing laws as it is. Do you really want to clog up the system further? "American legislation can be ambiguous. However, the solution to this problem is not to put nine people in charge of interpreting it, but rather to make additional amendments to clarify it. The so called "problem", Con states that there would be if the legislative branch of government were put in charge of clarifying laws would not change."Yes, but Justices serve life terms and so avoid the influence of the sitting president. It's not as though Obama was able to choose all nine justices in 2008. In addition, while the Justices are not democratically chosen, the President is. If the country leans more toward the Democratic party, then isn't the sitting president appointing a Democratic judge an extension of that?Now let's see how my opponent responds to my own contentions in favor of the Supreme Court's current state."In Con's misguided rebuttal of my third contention, he states that "smaller groups avoid gridlock". However, there is an easy solution that would solve is problem in the legislative branch. In decisions that cannot be reached because of gridlock, the veto power of the President could be lowered from 66% to 60% of congress."Oh, so now the Legislative branch needs to seep power away from the Executive branch too? Are you trying to set up an oligarchy? Because that's how you set up an oligarchy.And then you completely ignored my contention on Judicial Review, which just so happened to be possibly the most important one I made.Voters, my opponent has entirely dropped my two most important contentions regarding the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. Judicial review is the most important power of the Supreme Court in the first place, and it was the grounds of my opponent's entire argument. And then they ignored my explanation for why it ought to be there. If that by itself isn't grounds for winning, then it's at the very least grounds for losing conduct points.