On the contrary about the supreme court being the ultimate law of the land. The people are the ultimate law of the land. But our system of government is not democratic, parliamentary, monarchical, or a dictatorship. It is; or at least suppose to be; a "Representative" Style of government. Our BIGGEST problem with our government is the congress; and then by proxy, we the voters.
First thing to remember is that the constitution was ratified in 1787. However; 4 years later, in 1791, they realized already that they needed to amend it. They added the first 10 amendments. This alone illustrates that the founding fathers knew that even more amendments would probably be needed in the future. Now the first 10 amendments; along with the next 2; all happened under the direct or indirect guidance and leadership of the founding fathers. I.e From ratification of the constitution, until the 12 amendment was ratified, was a total of 17 years. Including a change, 11th amendment, directed towards the judicial branch. Then there was a 61 year wait until the 13th amendment.
This too, the 13th amendment, as well as the 14th and 19th amendments, showed that there was obviously an "Interpretation" issue in the declaration and the constitution. It was originally written with the concept that "All Men" were created equal. It emphasizes "One People". Yet until 1865, they did not believe that blacks were part of "One People" or that they were created equal. And until the 19th amendment, they didn't believe women were of any societal importance. Obviously, that interpretation has changed. If you noticed, they didn't CHANGE or DELETE anything in the constitution. They added an amendment to clarify. And the 10th amendment makes it clear that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".
So where do the problems lie. That is simple; the congress and the people. The people for continuing to vote in the same lazy SOB's term, after term, after term, etc... The congress, because if the supreme court interprets a bill, law, or the constitution in such a way that the congress who voted on it does not agree was the intention; (Including their ancestors who were the original congress who wrote the constitution); then the congress has the POWER to rescind the bill that was put into place and signed into law by the president. They can then submit a NEW bill with clarification leaning more towards their intent. The only thing the supreme court can contest, is if the laws written by congress and approved by the president, contradict the existing constitution of the united states and it's amendments. If it isn't unconstitutional, the court can not rule against it. Even if they don't like it. I personally believe we saw this FIRST HAND last week when the 9th circuit court (I believe) upheld the voter's vote in california for PROPOSITION 8. The court obviously didn't like the ballot; but the people voted on a properly submitted ballot initiative. The people voted. There's nothing about marriage in the constitution. Therefor the proposition is constitutional. Obviously, there are some different interpretations, but that is what the court ruled.
So, if the supreme court rules against something that the PEOPLE and by proxy their congress, did not intend to mean a certain way; then it is the congress's responsibility to rescind the law and present a clarified version that can not be as easily misinterpreted. So, we should be blaming congress. However, we should blame ourselves for re-electing the Pelosi's, Boxer's, Kennedy's, etc...
So no; the supreme court is not the ultimate power. But our system of government, with it's checks and balance system, is set up so that we will elect representatives/senators who will address, clarify, change as necessary, etc... any laws and such so that the supreme court is clear on their meaning. Our congress however is weak. They don't rock the boat. They ALLOW legislation from the bench. But we stop that by stopping the congress. That is our power.
Personally, I'd like to see another amendment to the 2nd amendment that not only clarified the who, what, where, when, why, etc...; but to take that power away from the state. I.e. I'd like to see the 2nd amendment made so that all the requirements; e.g. age, citizenship, felony, type of weapons, concealed carry, etc... was all spelled out there. Then it would be a national issue and the states couldn't change it locally. This way, your CCW would be issued nationally and be good any place in the country. Whoever wasn't allowed to own a gun would be the same in New Jersey as in Nevada. Anyway, that's what I would like to see happen.
I don't believe the 2nd amendment is being taken away from us. I don't believe it has turned into a privilege. I don't believe that we need permission to exercise our right. There isn't a state in the union that doesn't allow an 18 year old to buy a gun; have it in their home; and protect themselves, family, and property. Some states may require that you follow certain administrative processes, but that isn't stopping you from exercising your right. (I don't think they should force you to PAY for it however). These administrative processes may be a PITA, inconvenient, etc... but to an extent, they are required. I don't believe that convicted felon should be allowed a gun. And as soon as you agree that there's at least one citizen who shouldn't be allowed to exercise a right, you need administrative guidelines. Mentally handicapped; drug abuser; etc... My thing is I'd just like to see it clarified nationally. However; it would probably suck for me. My state is very pro-gun (Wyoming). To make it nationally, including CCW, my state, along with other pro-gun states, would have to compromise with the communist state of New Jersey, California, etc....
P.S. CORRECTION: I said the courts give the states power. That is incorrect. I didn't even mean that. The constitution, via the articles, explains the power of the congress, executive, judicial branches as well as the states. I also agree that words have meanings. And if only one person saw the truth, that person would be right. Unfortunately, I don't necessarily believe that you are right. I'm not saying I am completely right either. If there was a straight right and wrong, we wouldn't have states having different rules for this issue.