shysters3, thanks for the balanced and thoughtful lesson on the constitutional history. Yes, I understood you meant my hyperbole, not that of Jefferson or Hamilton etc.
You are right to point out an element of "bad faith" (as Sartre might call it) in my argument, that of course I would want to defend the Brown decision and a number of other Warren Court decisions. When we were young, the Supreme Court justices were heroes to us: William O. Douglass, Thurgood Marshall, and my friends and I took a course on the Supreme Court in high school (I went to a very cool public high school in northern New Jersey - ALL elective courses, this was the 1970s).
So you are right, if I am ready to say, "The Supreme Court was created as part of an 18th century project to create a more limited elite-governed republic with some representation for the people but generally hostile to democracy. This point of of view has been outdated for a long time - since the Populists of the late 19th Century won direct election of Senators for example, and so we should think about major constitutional reforms like doing without the SCOTUS or the Electoral College, which other democratic countries like England or France or Canada do just fine without." - then I am doing away with Brown, the original Miranda decision, many decisions advancing women's rights etc.
But I would also say that while at times we have needed courts to intervene because our democratic politics did not work as it should have, that in the end democracy is a better way to get this stuff done, and the risk of so much power in the hands of 9 people, (or 5), is not worth it. The Warren Court seemed the norm to us but I see now that it was an anomaly, a brief period in 200 plus years. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is a much more secure basis for equality than was the Brown decision, which did not really succeed in desegregating most schools in America anyway. The 1965 Voting Rights Act is also a more secure basis, except that the threat to that act, which was weakened substantially a couple of years ago, comes from the Supreme Court itself. Otherwise its opponents would have to convince the public and repeal it by vote in Congress, as should be the case if one wants to change things, be it for worse or better.