I understood his point. Mine is that the "will of the people" does not always prevail. By your reasoning (a) law = what the legislature passes (and Pres. approves), (b) what the legislature passes = the will of the people, and (c) the supreme court should never overturn the will of the people

Then there would be no purpose for the supreme court - as by definition all law is legitimate. What matters is not whether a law = "will-of-the-people", rather what matters is whether the law is constitutional.