This is why judges cannot be the highest power - the people still need to be able to hold them accountable to ensure that the legal institutions don't become inaccessible to the common man.
(Not that they are accessible now... but it could be worse.)
That was Scalia's point in his dissent of the gay marriage decision:
Scalia argues in his opinion that the court is increasingly creating policy rather than serving as a neutral arbiter.
“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he writes.
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
People in one part of the country go to the courts, and force their will/values on the rest of the country. Activists across the political spectrum do it.
It’s funny since that specific ruling is what stopped a minority of the US population from imposing their will/“values” on the rest of the country.
Clearly the electoral college and legislature is not setup properly to reflect the will of the people at this point in time, so we have a better chance of it happening from 9 Supreme Court judges.
(Not that they are accessible now... but it could be worse.)