Absolutely, Congress can, the Executive branch can, and so can the Supremes. All are populated by individuals with their own biases, political views and concepts of the Constitution. Before 1900 the SC was not considered the sole arbiter of what the Constitution meant. Certainly Lincoln did not believe that and said so regarding the Dred Scott decision. Post 1930 it began to be accepted as dogma that the SC's position was final. The concept that a 5-4 majority of appointed officials who never have to answer or justify their position to the People as a whole is dangerously close to an oligarchy, not a democratic republic. SC decisions like Plessy v. Fergesson justified segregation laws, and more recently, the Kelo decision which allows a city or state government to condemn your property so that it can maximize tax revenues. Neither IMHO were good interpretations of the sense of the Constituon. Kelo alone would have had the Founders reaching for their muskets and shouting "Tyranny." The SC justices are fallible humans just like Congressmen and Presidents.Thus the need for a check on their power.
The genius of the original Founders vision was that they knew from history and their own experience that rulers tended to become tyrants unless thery were checked. Hence, the truly brilliant division of powers between the three branches. What they did not provide was a check on the power on the Supreme Court, which was my point. As a thought experiment, and not knowing your politics, think about a SC with 9 Scalias or 9 Ruth Ginsburgs. Both cases are unlikely, but not impossible. In either case a large number of citizens would feel that their concept of American governance was being trampled upon. If the people don't like what a President or Congress does they can change them. Some kind of check on the absolute power of the SC lying in the hands of the people, or their representatives would prevent that from ever occuring.