The people have repeatedly had their will struck down again and again by the Ayatollahs at the supreme court.
Who are seated by whatever people the citizenry have selected to represent them. State Federal judges (Proposition 8) are not selected any differently than Supreme Court judges - tapped by the President, approved by the Congress - so I can see why you might bring up the latter but I can not justify all of your leaps to that point, including prejudging regarding the Prop C law. Of course a Federal judge can eventually; they don't all think the same. Who is to say it won't be the PEOPLE - just not the ones with your opinion that it is good - who will bring Proposition C to trial before a judge.
If I understand correctly, your argument is this: it should not be permissible for a person elected or appointed to office at some particular time, based on some vector of what they would likely do in given situations based on their appointers (e.g., the then-current President who is elected by the then-current people and the then-current Senate who are also elected by the then-current people) trust, should ever have any views that do not coincide with those of the now-current people. Since that was a bit unfairly long-winded: you do not like that the court system can be representative of anything but a current people's majority opinion.
In any case, my assumption does have two points. The first is contention against unelected offices; the second is a contention against anything in government that does not fulfill a public opinion, even if its reason has merit; and, both these points don't have to be valid at the same time. Even though I do have more I would like to say on other things, I believe it is more important for me that I understand your position or argument correctly.