I partly agree your point of view, but it's impractical. Impeachment is extremely difficult in most cases. When impeachment fails (as it almost surely would), what are we supposed to do -- lie back and enjoy the ride?
We've had autocratic and imperious judges at least since Roger Taney (and going as far back as SCOTUS's power grab in Marbury v. Madison).
How are we going to stop them, other than with a democratic process of constitutional amendment?
It took a civil war to overturn Mr. Taney. I'm afraid there's nothing short of an amendment that will overturn the leftist cabal in Boston and S.F.
How are we going to stop them, other than with a democratic process of constitutional amendment?
Two points. First, I suggest a re-read of Marbury v. Madison. Marshall refused to exercise judicial power, because the court was not granted the power (by the Constitution) to grant the remedy that the plaintiff sued for. The phrase "to determine what the law is" can be taken in two diametrically opposite ways. The vast majority of cites to Marbury v. Madison interpret the phrase the worng way, i.e., that the court makes the law.
Stopping runaway judges? That's hard, but either that happens, or this experiment we call the USA will not be durable. Go ahead, amend the Constitution. But what are the people going to do if the judges ignore that? See, e.g., the Campaign Finance Reform law that prohibits the purchase or sale of candidate-pointed television or radio advertisement in the 60 days before an election. Is it Constitutional in light of the 1st amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...")? Well, is it Constitutional? The answer is YES, because 1) it was passed by congress, 2) signed by the President and 3) SCOTUS ruled that it is.