Lord no. Thurgood Marshall was a wonderful attorney; he might have made a great legislator, as he certainly acted like he was one while on the Court, but as a judge, he was an absolute disaster.
Have you become an originalist now, or merely a Kagan-esque textualist?
Neither. Rather, it's that in the absence of an explicit Constitutional provision to the contrary, I believe courts should give full deference to the legislative branches at both the Federal and State level. I strongly advocate the primacy of the legislative branch. Courts have no business determining if laws are good, wise, or popular, just if they are Constitutional. (Similarly, I believe that Chevron deference is sound judicial practice with respect to giving the executive branch the primary function of interpreting legislative intent.)I generally think those that proclaim "legislating from the bench" are merely just screaming about a decision they didn't like. I would agree with your general premise about legislative primacy (I would actually go further and argue for legislative supremacy). I think the only issue with INS v. Chadha is that it violated bicameralism, not the Presentment Clause or separation of powers. I would argue that only a one-house legislative veto is impermissible, but a two-house legislative veto would be allowed under an appropriate paradigm.