The Supreme Court vs. the Will of the People

This being a democracy, the majority is supposed to rule.  So when, for example, polls show that 75% of the country supports an existing ruling, the Supreme Court has no business overturning it.  Do they?

Yes.  And no.

Let me pick a couple of related, unpopular cases (which I've summed up in the past).
https://kevinwadejohnson.blogspot.com/2020/09/only-somewhat-supreme.html

One is the infamous Dred Scott decision.  In language I would consider much more intemperate that a court should use, that Supreme Court majority opinion referred to people of African origin as "an inferior class of beings."  That went over so well that we ended up with a civil war and three constitutional amendments to stop such nonsense.

Only the second case showed it would take a lot of stopping.  Plessy vs. Ferguson resulted in the court declaring that one of those amendments, the Fourteenth, was only meant to enforce racial equality, not erase racial distinctions.  It went on to declare segregation constitutional, and let Jim Crow laws stand.  It's considered another of the most atrocious decisions.

Even though, racism being even more prevalent then than now, I have little doubt that a majority was okay with them,* particularly Plessy.  (Note to oppressors: Pick a gender, skin color, etc., then deny those people educations and opportunities.  Voila, many people will find them inferior.  The fact that the oppressed were given no chance to demonstrate equality will not generally register.)

*Just among abolitionists, some opposed slavery as morally wrong.  Some opposed it because of the way it was splitting the north and south.  Some opposed it for what it was doing to the slaves.  Some opposed it for what it was doing to the slave owners.  And so on.  How many of the population then thought blacks and whites should be treated equally?  I doubt a majority.

So, that's two.  Here's two more, on the other side:

Loving vs. Virginia struck down state laws against being allowed to choose a spouse from another race.  Roe vs. Wade, as we all know, made state laws against a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy unconstitutional.

Those last two verdicts are well-regarded, and certainly a majority supports them.  Dred Scott and Plessy, on the other hand, probably were the will of a majority at the time, but are rightly condemned today.

What's the difference?

The difference is that the United States was founded on freedom: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  We hold those truths to be self-evident, we said so.

So when the Supreme Court puts forth an unpopular verdict that affirms freedoms, then despite unpopularity those verdicts last at least for decades, and remain well-regarded even longer.  When the court takes freedom of choice away, that court is consigned to ignominy.

Because the majority in this democracy may not agree on an issue, but freedom is the foundation our forefathers made.  Build up from it, and you build something lasting.  Take away from that foundation, and watch our constitutional edifice totter.  Sometimes fracture.