The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court "ultimate authority" of anything other than being the final court of appeal in the federal judicial system.
It certainly in no way grants the courts sole providence over matters of constitutionality, and it doesn't grant them final say.
The reasoning of Marbury doesn't contemplate this, either.
So no, to say this does not mean one does "not support the Constitution."
You were also replying to the idea that that the federal government doesn't have final say as to its authority over the states, and you cited Marbury as evidence that it does. Those are two separate spheres of argument -- the courts determining constitutionality of laws, and the relationship between the federal government and the states.
Textually, the states have considerable authority over the federal government as the Constitution specifically grants them the power to call a constitutional convention, at which they could alter the federal government in any way they choose. The Constitution does not grant the federal government any similar authority over the states.