Feels bad man. I absolutely know how it is, but I'll try to be short out of respect.

So, the reason I have this perspective that ignoring unconstitutional law is better than judicial over-ruling is because I believe that over-ruling has caused far more severe damage to the nation by shutting down all legal avenues of arbitrating an issue for over 40 years at a time, which then causes much more significant political disruption. I believe the court learned this the hard way to, because they almost got totally undermined after Brown v. Board, and it took them decades of soft-power work to bring the State Supreme Courts back into line. The idea is that the court should settle the law by declaring it one way or another, but it doesn't, it just hardlines a position and it causes either tyranny, or further disruption.

Judicial review still exists, but the court can't simply invalidate the law and prevent any further changes. This would actually give district and state courts much more leeway to solve their own problems, then letting SCOTUS over-rule both them and congress.

Remember that England is where we get most of our legal system from, and they never had a Supreme Court that could overturn parliament until Tony Blair. The judiciary simply made arguments on previous precedent and the protection of English liberties. The first thing their supreme court did, like ours, was give themselves sweeping powers. Worse, their supreme court gave themselves the ability to interfere in legislative procedure because the UK rejected the philosophy of the separation of powers. This is why people on the British right are trying to dissolve it as quickly as possible. It's a genuine threat to English liberty.

As well as the fact that you assume the court has a responsibility to "fix" the issues that other branches have created, while said branches have negatively influenced the judiciary themselves, like FDR did for them to "allow" the gold/silver to be confiscated seems to be almost self-contradicting, the courts have responsibilities but the other branches don't?

No, this is what I meant by a default refusal to comply. Everyone has a responsibility to refuse to abide by laws which are unconstitutional, however that may be. This ensures that the government can't operate on some level on some controversial issues, but that's okay because it's better for controversial issues to be settled in society first rather than be addressed by the government. This is because it ensures that no coercion on the issue can occur, since the government can't force compliance to a law that isn't being instituted because of intra-governmental disputes.