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

I would like to address a few points about my own conduct. I would freely admit that were I to insult my opponent, I ought to lose conduct points. However, I did not. I called my opponent's arguments ludicrous. I have not commited an ad hominem attack. I even explained why that particular argument was ludicrous.My opponent also states that I did not respond to all of their arguments. I freely invite them to tell me which.They then respond to me contention of Judicial Review with this:"'If an issue is a hot-button topic for long enough, it WILL eventually be put in front of the supreme court.'The argument of judicial review is irrelivant because of this"How so? I do not see how the Supreme Court having to respond to issues raised by the people is in anyway indicative of Judicial Review being bad."I was not suggesting this. I was suggesting that we should make additional amendments that clarify laws, and that we shouldn't just have nine people guess what the laws mean."This could either mean having congress set laws for all possible contingencies at the moment they ratify a law, or just deciding the contingencies as they come in. Since you've expressed that you do not desire the former (which is absurd), that means you want the latter.The Supreme Court already reviews 130 petitions a week, and even then they only have enough time to hear about 80 of these cases over a period of NINE MONTHS. And on each of the active days in those nine months, they spend five hours a day listening to cases. [7] If you are honestly suggesting that we ought to dump that Herculean task onto Congress on top of the mammoth amount of work that Congress already does, then I think that calling this idea ludicrous is not an overstatement.In addition, "guessing"? Each Justice has years of legal experience, and spends most of their time reviewing precedents of cases as well as the cases presented by the people who appealed. This can take weeks.[7] That's hardly "guessing".In addition, if the judges were just guessing, then they would agree far less than they do. As I've already pointed out, in most cases the Justices have a strong consensus."The fact that justices serve life terms is a problem BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO REMOVE THEM."Actually there is. Congress can impeach Justices if they feel that they are irresponsible or unknowledgeable, and this has happened before in 1805.[8]"IF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IS CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE, THEN THE GOVERNMENT IS A DEMOCRACY."If we are to believe this, then we are to believe that popular support for issues would match congressional support. Is this the case?While 60% of Americans support gay marriage, only 45% of congress does. [9][10]While 61% of Americans support marijuana legalization, barely 3% of congress does. [11][12]Congress is not a magic source of the will of the people. Many congressmen are elected from gerrymandering, and many have their own agendas that do not match the will of those who elected them.Now, just for a moment here, I'm going to examine the case I made in round 2. Here's a breakdown of it:CONTENTION ONE REBUTTALSubpoint A: Supreme Court does not have the power of arbitrary declarations of constitutionality.Subpoint B: Arbitrary declarations are impossible pass over partisan divisions.Subpoint C: Cases cited as evidence are not evidence.CONTENTION TWO REBUTTALSubpoint D: Judges tend to agree on issues.JUDICIAL REVIEW:Subpoint E: Necessity of Judicial Review.Subpoint F: JR has advanced equal rights progress.SIZE OF THE SUPREME COURT:Subpoint G: Avoids gridlock.Subpoint H: Court is not imposing laws.Of these, my opponent has completely dropped Subpoints C, D, F, and H.[7]http://tinyurl.com...[8]http://tinyurl.com...[9]http://tinyurl.com...[10]http://tinyurl.com...[11]http://tinyurl.com...[12]http://tinyurl.com...;