The "supreme" Court should not be telling the Constitution what the Constitution means, but rather the Constitution should be telling the "supreme" Court what the Constitution means.
By the very nature of "interpreting" it is almost impossible for any Court "interpretive" decision to do anything but reduce the authority of the Constitution. Surely, it cannot increase that authority by anything it "decides." The minute you "interpret" something that the Constitution says, you diminish, and trivialize it to some degree. The people individually are the only real definer of what the Constitution means.
Every interpretive and defining decision of the supreme Court, or any lower Court for that matter, has a tendency to shoot a hole through the body of the Constitution. The Courts, in general, should be limited by Congress to deciding case law, that is the law of each case brought before it, and forget about setting precedents, and trying to interpret and define what the Constitution says or means, putting itself in place of the Constitution, in effect trying to replace the Constitution with its "divine" self.
True, the courts need to decide specific cases that are brought before it in light of what the Constitution says, but that is all they should be limited to.
Let's repeat the note above: In a very telling manner, the Constitution itself never, ever refers to the "supreme" court as the "Supreme" Court. It purposefully and significantly always uses the lower case "s" as in "supreme" Court when it mentions the court. Supreme with an upper case "S" means divine or holy, and it is just that sort of implication that the supreme court has promulgated. The supreme Court is not "Supreme" in any way, but only "supreme," meaning highest among the other courts, and this is an enormous difference.