It’s the best way to keep activist courts from continuously overriding the will of the people and the work of the legislature.
No, the best way to stop activist courts is to elect good senators and as good of presidents as possible. On the state level, elect good judges if applicable.
In California's case, the judges there were retained by the people. They had a vote.
We've had few constitutional amendments for a reason. Outside of the Bill of Rights, we had 17 of them in 219 years. I really don't want number 18 to be something that prohibits people instead of governments.
Actually, a bill granting gays the same rights as the court decision passed the California legislature twice only to be vetoed by Arnold. He stated that he thought the courts should decide.
Plus, even though California's SC judges are appointed, they must be re-elected by the people every so often.