Judicial review and the ability of the Court to have an agenda (or an ideology) has been the basis of discussion since Marbury v. Madison. In a democratic state figures of power who have no constituant responsiblity have always been questioned on their legitimacy. Many people find it hard to understand why nine men and women can remove the wants and wishes, that are enacted into law, of a majority of the country's populace. So the question still remains, where is the Court's legitimacy in their ablity to silence a majority?.
Many people who ask these questions do not have the basis understanding of the constitution (and specifically the bill of rights) and it's purpose. In no way is the constitution designed to protect the rights of the majority. It put in place to protect people in the minority. And thusly the only way that these minority rights can be protected is to have those who are in place to protect these rights immune to majority will. Although this sounds like a very Hobbesian authoritarian view of American government, the court must work and act in this manner to accomplish its founding intentions. If we look to 1954 for an example we find that in Brown v. Board of Education the Court clearly had to go against the will of the majority in order to protect a minorities rights. Some might argue that this was the place of the legislature to handle such a matter. But no politician could stand up to protect the minority's rights that were clearly being violated for fear of the retaliation at the ballot box by the majority. In this case the purpose and legitimacy of the non-elected figures in power was shown clear. Thusly I feel as though the question of the difference between what the courts do and what they were intended to do is moot. The answer to this is that the Court does what it does because of what they intended to do, protect minority rights.