Okay, so imagine plaintiffs claim the constitution says X and so that's the law even if the statute says not-X. Whereas defendants claim the statute says not-X but they believe it doesn't conflict with whatever the constitution says. SCOTUS being the arbiter studies both and finds that the constitution says X, the statute says not-X, the constitution is supreme, and therefore X is in fact the law.
Exactly how is that different from saying the statute is "unconstitutional"?
Imagine the claim is that the constitution says X, the statute says not-X, and the court rules ABCD and a pony.
How exactly do you prevent that sort of thing? What mechanism could do so?
If you can think of one, I'll note that it can likewise be applied to the scenario you described. If you can't, then I'll argue that the court's power is... Quite open-ended, with no limits on it.
> How exactly do you prevent that sort of thing? What mechanism could do so?
You don't prevent it, you deal with it after the fact. If Congress finds the court ruling egregious enough it obviously has mechanisms to deal with it. Like by impeaching justices, installing new ones, etc. And if for whatever reasons those aren't options, well, then there is no recourse.
Regardless, even if the court's power were unlimited, this is not answering my question or addressing my point regarding judicial review...
Exactly how is that different from saying the statute is "unconstitutional"?