Boss
Take a Memo:
That's what Justice Scalia tried to do, but unfortunately not everyone in the SCOTUS shares his views, not to mention the general public.
The point is, I learned clearly from reality that when you say a candidate represents the values in the Constitution, his supporters will be happy about it while others tend to ignore it or treat the argument like you-know-what...
Well the thing is... our Constitution and system of government is not really up to "people's views" or it shouldn't be. If that is the case, we may as well not even have a Constitution or formal system of government because it can simply be changed depending on "people's views" and we'll all have to live by that until other people with different views control political power. I don't think that's what our framers had in mind and they would be miffed at how someone could think such a foolish idea could prevail.
Your personal views should have absolutely ZERO to do with how you rule as a justice on the Supreme Court. You can't say... Oh, I like Gay Marriage, therefore, I am going to find a way to manipulate the Constitution so that we can legalize it! If that is the standard we're going to establish then we don't really have a Constitution at all. We just have this giant word salad where the words can be arranged to suit our palate at any given time and to hell with what they originally meant.
If most of the general public is in favor of Gay Marriage, why not adopt a Constitutional amendment and have it ratified by the states? That is the process our framers gave us to handle something like that. It's not supposed to be up to "people's views" as determined by a majority of justices. That is not even true democracy... it's oligarchy.