There is, in theory, a much greater check in the form of constitutional amendments. It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional.
Of course, you'd be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
> Of course, you’d be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
“66% of America” isn’t actually relevant (that is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient to ratify, or even submit for ratification, a Constitutional Amendment).
> It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional.
You're not wrong. That said, it's the SC's job to interpret the wording and the intent of the constitution, including all its amendments. It's how one group of SC justices created the Roe vs. Wade decision, and another group of SC justices overturned it, both using the same constitution and precedent.
Of course, you'd be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.