No, you are wrong. And I don't even know what you mean by "the State Constitution." Congress cannot contradict what the Supreme Court says the Constitution requires (although they can provide additional protections to people, they just can't go in the opposite direction, such as doing what the Constitution forbids). Its a separation of powers issue. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of what the Constitution means, period. That includes the vast majority of constitutional jurisprudence. Think of "constitutional common law" as constitutional jurisprudence. This is why I know someone knows nothing about constitutional law when they say it is the Supreme Court's job to "interpret" the law. They make law when it comes to the Constitution. Plain and simple. That's how it has been for the last 200 years.
On an unrelated note, there is a little bit of federal common law, but that is a different issue entirely.
What do they teach you in law school? Congress can pass a new federal law which has supremacy over state law, state constitution, or a previous federal law. Congress has many times passed a new law because they did not like a federal court's interpretation of it. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives", a fact many activist judges seem to over look.
Once again Tyrannical, you are showing how little you actually know. Unless the state law raises a constitutional issue, the Supreme Court cannot review that state law and overturn it. The Supreme Court (and any federal court for that matter) is Erie-bound to do so and is bound by state in a context outside of reviewing its constitutionality or how it impacts certain federal laws (such as federal laws that may pre-empt the state laws).
Wikipedia explains the Erie doctrine pretty well:
"The Erie case involved a fundamental question of federalism and the jurisdiction of federal courts in the United States. Congress passed a law still in effect today called the Rules of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. 1652), which states that the laws of a state furnish the rules of decision for a federal court sitting in that state. Thus, a federal court in Texas, hearing a case based on diversity (as opposed to a federal question), has to follow the laws of Texas in resolving a case before it."
And Congress can only pass laws that pre-empt state law if they have the constituionally enumerated subject matter jurisdiction to do so. Congress cannot just pass any law it likes.
And yes, you are right that Congress can change one of ITS laws if it doesn't like the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. But say, if it does not like the holding in Miranda v. Arizona, it cannot just do away with 5th Amendment Miranda Rights if the Supreme Court says so. This was an actual case a few years ago, and the Supreme Court struck down a law that tried to get around Miranda. The Supreme Court does allow Congress to limit some of the Court's constitutional remedies under some circumstances, but it is entitled to tell Congress to back the fuck off and say that the Court's decision is the law. That's how it works.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson