How can the political opposition deal with a political Supreme Court?

In his year end report, Chief Justice Roberts called out “threats to defy lawfully entered judgments”.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, in response to a Supreme Court ruling regarding the rights of the Cherokee Nation,  “The Chief Justice has made his ruling.  Now let him enforce it.”

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes asserted, the Constitution “means what the judges say it means.”.

At his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts stated “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch and bat”.

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall asserted, “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.” and that overturning unconstitutional legislation is a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the constitution.

All of the foregoing, except Jackson’s remark, is said to establish the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority on the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution to the  exclusion of other branches.   But does it? 

All federal office holders, including the military take oaths to support and defend the constitution.  In order to do that, they must know what it means.  Nowhere in the Constitution is it provided that in so doing they must adhere to the Supreme Court’s opinion as to meaning.  David Currie, a former and highly respected professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School, used to enjoy emphasizing that fact.  

Reacting to profound disagreement with the Supreme Court of his time, FDR attempted to “pack” the court.  Although the Senate refused support the effort, the attempt unnerved the court sufficiently that Justice Owen Roberts, in the 1937 case of West Coast Hotel Co,. v. Parrish, reversed prior rulings and approved New Deal legislation known historically as “the switch in time that saved nine.”.  Prior to that, several court packings were successful and caused changes of direction by the court.  Other weapons available to the legislative branch are the power to prescribe the numbers and jurisdictional limits of the lower federal courts.  If a lower court has no jurisdiction, the Supreme Court cannot reach the issue through its appellate jurisdiction granted by Article III.  

In view of the fact that the Court has now reversed Roe V. Wade, despite the judges doing so having asserted at their confirmation hearings that the case was “settled law”, arguably a lie under oath in those circumstances; has created a formerly unknown immunity for President Elect Trump for criminal behavior in the course of his official duties, based on no specific provision of the Constitution; has assisted in delay of criminal proceedings against Trump after his term expired; and showed every intention of dismantling governmental regulatory procedure to cripple Congress’ ability to regulate, the Democrats, should they ever gain sufficient power, power they do not currently possess, ought not hesitate to utilize any of the tools available described above to pressure the court into bipartisan neutrality. 

The political nature of the Supreme Court can no longer be denied nor should it ever have been.  The majority currently appears to be a tool of right-wing political conservatism and should be treated as such.