You could make this argument about not just any Supreme Court case, but about any law that exists. Someone or some group has to be the authority on interpreting any given law, and if they interpret a law that says "X is allowed" to mean "X is banned", then that is in their power to do so. Ideally when their interpretation becomes some blatantly against the will of the people, the people need to take action. In the case of the US, we need amendments to clarify things.
But so far this hasn't really been against the will of the people. So many wanted some level of obscenity ban. So many want some level of gun restrictions. And so many are willing to give up their privacy because of the promises made by those in power of the safety they will receive in turn. Sometimes when people play with fire, they aren't going to learn a lesson until they are burned, and there is nothing we can do other than try to protect ourselves from the blaze.
We have enough people right now wanting to restrict rights for promises of safety (even when those promises are not delivered on) that I'm not sure what we can do in the US. More education on reasons why one should not trust an all powerful authority, but we have plenty of evidence that teaching someone something is bad for them might do nothing to stop them from doing it anyways.
