I would bet that the founders didn’t intend for courts to have the power of retrocausality that could expropriate legislative power to make laws. They undoubtedly thought courts should have the power to decide if a law was constitutionally consistent or not. That differs from post hoc rewriting and redistributing a laws meaning. A Supreme Court should go no farther than nullifying a law and sending it back to the legislature for rewriting.
The founders in keeping with human history regarded marriage as a legal establishment that heterosexuals did. The laws that built up concerning marriage were made entirely with that premise. When the Corporatist-leftist Roberts court redistributed marriage and more than two hundred years of American historical legislative construction to homosexuals that was a good example of retrocausality-with the court arrogating legislative power. If the Court regarded marriage with a modern phenomenalist lens wherein genetic intercourse to produce a blastocyst and zygote was irrelevant to marriage that was a particular opinion (everyone has one). The opinion should have stopped there and not retroactively redistributed those included in the paradigm and laws concerning marriage.
Retrocausalty of the court is not necessarily good. It makes a farce of the will of the people expressed through representative government. AS legally elected legislature constructs laws and builds and establishment for a particular purpose and later the court redistributes those covered under the law in contradiction of the intentions of the legislature and people. Examples abound of retrocasual malfeasances that could arise over the course of history.
Consider Medicare. It was established by the legislature to benefit older Americans. So someone sews and the courts decide Medicare discriminates against everyone that isn’t retired and extends those covered under the law universally.
Another example would be the rights of citizenship concerning running for public office, attending college or passing through border control. The court could decide that citizenship discriminates against non-citizens and extend any benefits provided by citizenship to non-citizens; instead of nullifying the exclusivity of citizenship concerning laws and sending it back to the legislature to reconsider.
If the court is simply f’d up in its opinion and has support of corporatism as does Chief Justice Roberts, remedies may be difficult to find.