The unanimous Younger abstention decision and the four dissents in the same sex marriage case - legislation by judges is ok if judges are high up and have no control over them?

I am finishing my analysis of the voluminous four dissents in the same sex marriage case and will start publishing them shortly, as they give a unique perspective as to the necessity of the U.S. Supreme Court at all, its authority and its excesses of authority, and its influence or, rather, undermining the American democracy.

What I must say as a foreword though is that the dissents are united by accusation of the majority opinion judges of exceeding their authority given to them by the American people.

Yet, all of the dissenters have recently participated in the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the so-called Younger abstention where the Younger abstention - a completely unconstitutional creature of courts that restricts, without authority, jurisdiction of the courts to hear civil rights cases - were allowed to live, albeit in a somewhat restricted format which was immediately expanded right back again by district courts.

I guess, in the minds of  the same sex marriage dissenters - judges Alito, Roberts, Thompson and Scalia - judges can exceed their authority in some cases (that the dissenters approve) and not others.

The question is - do we need such a court at all where judges arbitrarily, often and grossly exceed their authroity and impose their personal view upon the entire country under the guise of "constitutional interpretation"?