I suppose it is inevitable that supporters of the state , would, through their “pre-review world-view bias” [just like a certain part of the anatomy-everybody’s got one!] , interpret this famous clause as investing the Supreme Court with ultimate power of “interpretation”, but evidently it did not, and does not, at least as far as the actual writers of the document in question were concerned.
This should be clearly evident in the historical record, which shows that the 1st. congress at that time felt a specific need to pass the Judiciary Act [1789] , of which article 25 gave that specific power [i.e. ultimate judicial review/interpretation by the Supreme court] ; basically an effective “end run” around the still-under- construction Bill of Rights - effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights before it had even left congress or passed ratification by the individual states.
It seems to me that if the constitution had actually given such original ultimate judicial authority to the supreme court, as all state lovers contend, the actual authors/architects of it [most of whom made up the 1st congress] would never have felt the need to draft another law that specifically gave such authority.
See: Nullifying the Bill of Rights-The 1789 Judiciary Act Scam
regards, onebornfree.