Outsider, I'm amazed at how effectively the authors of our constitution understood, so long ago, that it would take division of powers and three branches to make a government effective. The court was not put into the constitution do deal with "factual constitutional content." That's easy. No, the court was brilliantly conceived to interpret the text to keep up with changes. And we could never have lasted more than 200 years without a court to interpret. 

Think about it. When it started, the constitution allowed slavery and only male property holders could vote. The changes – liberal, conservative, those you or I like and those we don't – are a vital part of a brilliant constitution. You can complain about them – we all have that right, and I hate some of the recent ones too – but let's not forget that our system needs courts, and interpretation, to survive. 

Hate specific decisions, yes. So do I (Citizens United, for example). But respect the constitution.