The Executive Office, that is the President, upon being elected by the people, through the electoral vote, takes an oath of office, in which the President states: "…and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Both Houses of Congress, elected by the people of America, take their oath, which reads in part: "…that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…" Both of these above oaths make it clear that the executive branch as well as the legislative branch have a faithful obligation to protect and to defend the Constitution of the United States. What these oaths do not say, and what these oaths do not mean, is that the Executive and legislative branches must at all times and for all reasons, bow down to the judicial branch of the government, that is the Supreme Court, and thereby abide by all of the Supreme Court decisions, no matter how inimical or how misguided they are to this Constitution, of which these nine justices are appointed for life, and are not elected by the people of this great country.
There is a clear and present danger of ceding the laws, the interpretation of laws, and the execution of laws into the hand of a small privileged tribunal, of which if a simple majority of such justices believe one thing against a minority that believe it not, it then becomes for all intents and purposes the law of the land. An interpretation such as that, would effectively eviscerate both the executive branch as well as the legislative branch, for if the judicial branch is left to its own devices, so that they, alone, through their human judgment, decide what is or isn't a law, what is or isn't permitted, what is or isn't the appropriate interpretation of the Constitution, from their viewpoint at that time, no matter their inherent prejudices and misjudgments, than the people have no effective voice, the executive does not really carry out the laws of the land, and the legislature does not make laws, for if the judicial branch is permitted to not only to interpret law but to essentially make and carry out new laws, than that judicial branch is the de facto ruler of the land.
In point of fact, the oaths taken by the executive as well as the legislative branches, clearly show that the judicial branch cannot now, nor shall be permitted to ever be the sole determinate of what is or isn't law, and what is or isn't the correct interpretation of Constitutional law. This isn't to say, that the judicial branch is by definition, a danger to the people, or an enemy of the state, for the justices of that court, have made many just interpretations of the Constitution, however, this same court, over an extended period of history, has deliberately subverted the Constitution in critical points of law, so as to have even aided and abetted enemies of our civil government. For instance, the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857, which stated in part under the dubious reasoning that because slaves were considered to be property, that such property, was still considered to be the property of the owner, no matter whether the State had outlawed slavery or not, or whether the territory did or did not permit slavery, so that to take such property from the owner of such when in a territory or State in which slavery was illegal, was a violation of their Firth Amendment due process clause, which was a sectarian decision unsoundly reasoned and wrongly decided.
So that, it can be said, for those that believe in judicial supremacy, that the Dred Scott ruling was clearly the law of the land, fortunately, within this country there were legislators that refused to disavow their Constitutional oath, and in 1860, with the election of Abraham Lincoln, this too meant that the executive branch would not permit an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution to destroy this country, so that the southern interests despite prevailing in the judicial branch of this country, knew that the voice of the people through their representative government would not be subverted or controlled by a pernicious judicial decision, and so they rebelled.