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

Sorry, my counter rebuttals are out of order.Contention 2 Counter Rebuttal:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If an issue is a hot-button topic for long enough, it WILL eventually be put in front of the supreme court. This is an inevitability. We see that, in the last two hundred years of American history, almost every major political debate that ended was ended by the supreme court. (abortion, gay marriage, segregation, inter-racial marriage, etc.)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. However, it would increase the power US citizens have over their government. Now, let's prove Con's first misled argument wrong:Contention 1 Counter Rebuttal:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"any arbitrary declaration of constitutionality would certainly fall along partisan lines" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The same is true for the Supreme Court. For those of you who don't know, the US Supreme Court's body isn't elected by U.S. citizens. They are chosen by the Executive Branch of government, or rather, the President. I seriously doubt that Con would have the naivety to claim that the President isn't of a certain party.* However, if the US legislative branch were in charge of changing laws, as they should be, US citizens would at least be deciding who would be in charge of doing this.Contention 3 Counter Rebuttal: 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. He/she also knows that US legislation can be confusing. This is a problem. We can easily get rid of this problem by granting the Legislative branch of government to clarify confusing laws, and add an amendment to the constitution that mandates that the Legislative branch of government make specific laws that apply only to certain situations (like an amendment giving gay people the right to marry). In conclusion, Con Should seriously rethink his/her arguments, or actually just concede entirely (joke).*I know what Con is going to say to this. I know that saying this is risky on my part, but I advise Con not to make that argument.