The very fact that the Supreme Court can do… basically anything isn’t explicitly written into the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says they can nullify laws. Jefferson even expressed concern about it.
Textualism is just pedantry. Objectivism isn’t perfect, but at least it realizes human beings aren’t God Himself.
And one could argue even God didn’t exactly do a good job writing out His laws since it’s been 3500 years and people still don’t agree on a lot of them.
Edit: Consider say… the First Amendment. As written literally nothing speech-wise could ever be illegal. Ever.
Let’s highlight the parts that don’t work:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Free speech zones, libel, slander, child porn… though techincally anything you don’t SAY isn’t necessarily covered unless it’s “press”. So start a newspaper or something. Print your kiddie porn and death threats on a leaflet and pass em out. There are about a hundred exemptions to the first alone, when it clearly says there cannot be any.
2nd Amendment? Restricted all the time, despite “shall not be infringed.” I can’t buy an RPG. Textually I should be able to as well a SAW and landmines if I was so inclined. But Congress passed laws infringing on those rights. I also can’t carry in a school. Or in Congress or the White House. Clear infringement.
It just isn’t how law works or has ever worked. I get and even respect to some extent the idea of “we can’t make the law say what it doesn’t actually say.” Except, of course, that the people who say that always find exceptions for the shit they like, so we’re back at inconsistent enforcement based on the whims of the people enforcing it.