I agree. But they did not intend for the SCOTUS to have the power of Judicial Review to the point where they could nullify statutes. John Marshall took that power for the Court in MARBURY v. MADISON and we have gone along with it (even though the Constitution does not give the Court power to nullify legislation) because it is the "least worst way" to resolve issues. Friday's decision is an example of going beyond even what John Marshall envisioned.
So, your answer to SCOTUS acting in a way you think the founding fathers didn't intend is to support a candidate who proposes amending the constitution in a way the founding fathers clearly didn't intend?
Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?