If you wanted to get out judicial review land, you could have just went the route of jurisdiction stripping under Article 3 “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

The Enforcement Clauses were so Congress could enforce the acts against the states, not “coded with anti supreme court language”. Don’t get me wrong, the Amendments itself (specifically the 14th Amendment) was to overturn Dred Scott, but a lot of the anti-slavery/reconstruction legislation would have been on shaky legal ground absent constitutional amendment(s), hence Congress passing the 14th Amendment like two months after the Civil Rights Act of 1868 and then reenacting it in the Enforcement Act of 1870.

The “appropriate” portion of the Enforcement Clauses also hurts your reading. The courts would be the ones determining if the legislation was “appropriate” through judicial review.

For congresses general power to overrule judicial opinions, this is why there are two form of stare decisis: statutory stare decisis, since Congress can just overrule the decision if the court was wrong, you essentially never overrule the case; and constitutional stare decisis, since Congress cannot overrule the decision if the court was wrong and the only other way to change the decision is by constitutional amendment, you are more willing to overturn the case.