The judges are not accountable and no one gave them the power to arbitrarily nullify laws. We're supposed to be a government OF THE PEOPLE
"Of ...by...[and] for the people" is actually from the Gettysburg Address and has nothing to do with the US Constitution (is it in the California State Constitution?). Much like judicial review, that phrase is merely an expression that many people hold to be true and right, but is not granted legitimacy in the Constitution. In most honest terms, we're a "nation of laws" and even that is not a definition found in stone. Out of two people when who have been found to have performed the same legal infraction, not one is supposed to get special treatment compared to the other. Out of two laws that conflict about the exact same situation, only one is valid. How much reality melds with this definition is up to your opinion, but the ideal should never be shrugged because other people don't believe in it.
So, your first point should be to either have judicial review ruled unconstitutional (would be a fascinating trial) or pass a law or Amendment that determines such a thing can not be done (or insist that since it's not in the Constitution it can not be done; I would like that, honestly, but imagine the chaos its successful argument would cause). The original "judicial review case" was actually a jury determining that the law was unconstitutional, going against the judge who said they should consider the case in light of a given "incontestable" law.
"Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect ... declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." (James Wilson, Constitutional Convention, 1787).