You have very much drunk the koolaid if you believe that Judicial Review for Constitutionality is a "fundamental function" of the Supreme Court. Perhaps it's radical of me, but I generally prefer that government institutions act within the law; and there's nothing in the law that gives them that power.
What I was saying, and have attempted to clarify multiple times now, is that Marbury v. Madison [and the other cases that have expanded the Supreme Court's power] has set a culture. You said it yourself: "then reversing the restraint just means that at worst the SC is (ab)using its constitutional powers 'without restraint' to interpret laws". Them discarding judicial restraint is a consequence of such a culture.
I feel like I've emphasised this point enough and it doesn't need further clarification. Cya, I guess.
What I was saying, and have attempted to clarify multiple times now, is that Marbury v. Madison [and the other cases that have expanded the Supreme Court's power] has set a culture. You said it yourself: "then reversing the restraint just means that at worst the SC is (ab)using its constitutional powers 'without restraint' to interpret laws". Them discarding judicial restraint is a consequence of such a culture.
I feel like I've emphasised this point enough and it doesn't need further clarification. Cya, I guess.