Incidentally, with respect to what role, if any, the Constitution should hold in restraining politicians from doing "the will of the people," consider judicial activism. Do you think judicial activism is wrong? After all, the judges are just doing the will of the people, by making decisions the legislature is unwilling to make. Much of Massachussetts applauded when its Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriages - there's you're will of the people. I might be wrong to think that judicial activism is wrong, but I have lots of company on this website.
I believe that their function in our government is simply to interpret the law and the intent of those who wrote it as it applies to the cases that come before them, nothing more. They are not there to make policy, nor are they there to make ”decisions the legislature is unwilling to make.”
I believe in the concept of a supreme court in which an odd number of judges decides if the decisions of other judges or of legislatures are in line with the letter and the spirit (intent) of the Constitution or similar state documents. I also believe that these supreme courts must contain members who are free of political connection and should represent the best legal minds, regardless of political affiliation. Most of all, I believe in a judiciary that treats everyone and every case equally, with no religious, gender, political, or cultural bias or preference.
I hope that I’ve answered your question.