Courts and public opinion

First Blogs for Bush, now this from the Volokh Conspiracy:

It seems to me that 18-year Supreme Court term limits would have some significant advantages over the current system: 1) it would tend to make the direction of the Supreme Court more reflective of public opinion over time and less contingent on the happenstance of who retires;

What is this fascination with courts being guided by public opinion? As I mentioned earlier, courts should only be deciding based on the rule of law, not what the majority of Americans want. If you want majority rulings, why not turn Supreme Court hearings into an American Idol style reality show instead? It would also generate great interest in our courts and political law by the public as well. It's a win/win situation, right?

Of course not. Allowing public opinion to creep into court rulings would also allow the majority to unfairly subjugate the minority whenever it wants. Think is terms of the struggle for equal rights, as one example. It would also, in my opinion, lead to increased impeachment hearings and a more political system. Which is something we don't need to see enhanced in the current system.

I don't mind the argument for term limits occurring. I have yet to be persuaded by any that I have seen. But we need to drop this insistence that the courts are there to uphold the will of the people. It's not their purpose, nor should it ever be.

(By the way, I agree with this comment as well:

I suspect that the academic community is bored with the stability on the current court and out to get credit for coming up with an idea that actually gets implemented, no matter how misguided the idea might be.

While I disagree with certain rulings, I don't see it as a "failure" of the court system. It just means my side was poorly argued, or even wrong. It's something you have to live with either way.)