You still haven’t said how you think it will work. I think it’s naive to believe that a legislature would self-correct on a law they had already passed, or for the executive to stop infringing rights by enforcing an unconstitutional law, if the courts could not bindingly rule laws to be unconstitutional. What happens when an advisory-only court says “no this is unconstitutional” and the other two branches just say “fuck off we’re doing it anyway?”
Nothing. What’s confusing to you about Congress overriding a presidential veto of an unconstitutional law? What’s confusing to you about a president enforcing a constitutional law in an unconstitutional way? Or maybe Congress impeaching and removing a president who refuses to enforce an unconstitutional law. Maybe Texas law enforcement should still be looking up marriage licenses between gay couples, breaking into their private homes (“by mistake, wrong address on the warrant”), and arrest them for sodomy because Lawrence vs Texas was only an advisory ruling? In any legal disagreement between two parties (congress vs the president, the people vs the government) there needs to be a 3rd party to arbitrate. That’s what the court system exists to do. Why should we make some special exception to that for whether or not the laws or actions of our government are within their constitutional restrictions?
If reviewing laws for their adherence to the constitution is a farce, then having a constitution at all is a farce. What would you have us replace it with as the foundation of our legal system?
Of course they flip flop, every reasonable person forms an opinion based on the information available at the time, and that can change.
So is pretty much every human on earth. That’s why we need should have a non-partisan group, to find consensus. Just because the current makeup of that group is overtly partisan doesn’t mean the very notion of courts reviewing laws is automatically evil. We have mechanisms in congress to address it and put in better guardrails for the future.
I’m not going to debate if a president can do that, as my position is that it’s just as naive a position that congress and the president will keep each other’s constitutionality in check as is the Libertarian position that corporations will do what’s morally best in pursuit of profit without government regulations, so I don’t think any president should do that (or even should be able to).