I join Mark in finding it somewhat odd. Obviously Will believes that conservatives are overdosing on majoritarianism and that he is supplying a useful corrective. But all he has succeeded in doing is refuting the argument that judicial activism is wrong simply because it overrules temporary majorities of the public. His major refutation of that argument is that other features of government, such as the Senate, also have the power to overrule temporary majorities. But nobody actually makes the argument that Will refutes. Most conservatives who object to the anti-majoritarianism of judicial activism object to it because they believe it tilts government further away from majoritarianism than the Constitution, properly construed, does.