Really? In a huge number of legislative districts in my country, only one party is competitive, and there is little organized intraparty effort to mount a challenge at the primary stage.
The judiciary is an antimajoritarian institution. There are times when what the majority wants isn't a good thing, and also times when what it wants isn't implemented by the legislature.
Also, plenty of judges aren't dipshits. Plenty of legislators are.
Point is: arguing from the first principles of political structure isn't terribly convincing since political reality doesn't actually match those principles.
I bet you're actually a smart person who is quite familiar with the appeals process, precedent, the distinction between common and statute law, and so forth. But for some reason you've chosen to field this sort of well-poisoning argument instead.
Why do you consider my argument well-poisoning?
It wasn't, not really. And this is exactly my point:
Most countries have successfully legislated abortion law. The USA's federal legislature failed to do so directly and left it to their supreme court to decide something from their ambiguity: as is their job.
This decision can still today be written clearly into law, in either direction, by representatives. So, it's an ongoing failure of the legislature.
A judgeship is made up of one dipshit in robes. He represents his own opinion and may not have ever been elected by the people. If he “legislates” something into law like this, it’s tantamount to indirect despotism.