Once again you are using an 8th-grade children's book interpretation of Marbury v. Madison to come to stupid conclusions that aren't based on any proper legal analysis but merely on your subjective emotional feeling that because you personally think "net neutrality" (a term that changes meaning every time it is mentioned on Slashdot) == OMG GOOD that it is now literally unconstitutional for the government to change a regulation that was passed in 2015. That's what a dictator does, not a court.
Here's a proper analysis:
1. Was the net neutrality regulation constitutional or not? A court might decide that -- properly -- based not on the emotional bigotry of a judge but based on a judgment as to whether the statutory grant of power to the FCC and the actual rule making process of the FCC met both the statutory and constitutional requirements for administrative rule making.
2. If it turns out that the rule is not legal, then it should be overturned. If it turns out that the rule was legal, then the exact same administrative body... the FCC... that promulgated the rule can rescind it in the future by definition. It's called Democracy, not dictatorship.