So basically you really don't understand how the separation of powers works. If the SC declares a law unconstitutional, Congress can try to change the law to make it constitutional per the Court's ruling, but they can't change what is or is not constitutional. That is the power of the Court.
Well, arguably it's not. What changes what is or is not constitutional is, or I assume ought to be, what is written in the constitution. You have a process for creating and amending your constitution. My understanding is that it involves various state and national elected representatives or bodies.
While it is the court's role to interpret law, it is not their job to change it. That is a pretty fundamnetal distinction that people often lose sight of.
We have the same sort of discussions in Canada about the 1982 Constitution Act, which contained a Charter of Rights. prior to 82, the courts could try to figure out what took precedence when different laws contradicted each other, and could strike laws as being outside legislative powers where a provincial legislature passed a law within federal legislative authority and vice versa, but it's role was pretty limited.
However, with the Charter, which is very vague as all such bills of rights tend to be, the Court has taken on a far more activist and progressive role.
Whether that is a positive or a negative is debated (though generally favoured). But I think it has been universally acknowledged as a major change in the role of the judiciary, initiated by constitutional reforms which in turn were initiated by the federal and (most) provincial legislatures.
I don't know if this is true, but If you've seen in the US that this change has been driven not by legislative initiative but by judicial creep, then it does make sense to consider what legal avenues exist to push back where teat judicial creep was not contemplated or sought by those that created such constitutions and laws in the first place.