This question is irrelevant. The Supreme Court of the United States is not beholden to the citizens of the United States directly. Their rulings make no room for public opinion. The purpose of the court, as described in the Constitution, is to interpret the laws. Marbury v. Madison allowed judicial review and essentially made the court what it is now, but at no point has the court ever been charged with the duty of ruling in favor of the will of the people. It is the charge of those in legislative positions to create legislation that truly reflects the will of the people, although how often the law is truly the will of the people is debatable. Rather, the court must read the law and use the relevant parts of the Constitution to determine whether the law falls within the determined bounds of the document. The Supreme Court is beholden only to the Constitution, nothing and no one else. Now, the real question is what role society plays in rulings. Of course, the court has made some awful decisions justifying things like slavery and segregation, but those laws, after tremendous social change, were correctly revisited in new cases and decisions were reversed. So, though I did refer to the question as irrelevant, the best answer is that the rulings of the Supreme Court under no circumstances must reflect the will of the people. Only the Constitution may be used to pass judgment on a law. However, it is fair to say that social change and progress create new and more progressive minds who in term tend to interpret the Constitution in a more progressive way. The Supreme Court's rulings do not necessarily reflect the will of the people, but they are heavily influenced by the ever-evolving ideals of the collective.
Now, there have been many recent rulings that both confirm and conflict with my answer. Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 VRA decision, is one that conflicts with my case. Dealing such a harsh blow to the VRA is certainly not a progressive decision. Looking beyond the issue of states rights, the case seems to come down to the idea that it simply isn't necessary anymore, that 'racism is over', if you will. Of course, many states immediately passed laws making it far more difficult to vote, especially for minorities, proving the Supreme Court essentially incorrect. Most damning to my case is that the particular law under review, the Voting Rights Act, was passed 50 years ago. The anniversary actually happened to be a few days ago, but I digress. There is no way that this particular ruling can be argued as progressive and reflective of our societal change, at least our real societal change, though it might make sense if one were to perceive change a certain way. Therein lies the issue. Perceived progress can sometimes create a situation in which certain actions are taken with the right motive but an incorrect grasp of the realities of the situation. This is not hard to understand, as only one justice is black and only one is hispanic. This is why I believe we must try to ensure that laws are interpreted by the Supreme Court beyond the realm of the theoretical, and into that of the practical. The Constitution and its amendments certainly seem to suggest that voting should be as accessible as possible, and, in theory, elections without the VRA would function in such a way that is acceptable under the basic guidelines of the Constitution, though states reserve the right to run their own elections. The perceived reality, that race is not nearly as great an issue as it once was, creates the misconceived notion that the VRA is no longer necessary to ensure the accessibility of voting. Without an understanding of the practical repercussions of such a decision, the decision was, in my opinion, incorrectly rendered. If you have watched any news in past year, you know that racial tensions are as high as ever. But, more importantly, with regards to the function of the court, the decision was rendered without a clear understanding of what certain states would do. Almost immediately, laws restricting voting were passed under the guise of the 'epidemic' of voter fraud. The decision of the court had immediate impact in a fashion that seemed to be beyond the vision of the concurring justices. Now, it is far more difficult to vote, and overwhelmingly large numbers of those practically disenfranchised are minorities.
Perhaps instead of a new system, a new type of justice is needed, one who understands not only the theoretical underpinnings of a law, but the practical impact that law will have. Only then will the Supreme Court be most efficient. The question is not simply whether a law fits into the Constitution, but whether its implementation and subsequent impact also remain within the rules of the Constitution, as well.
