Majority rule but in the face of judicial-moral decisions

peace.
I remember you writing about the following issues (especially regarding the nature of the majority decision), but I didn’t know where to look for a systematic Mishnah.
My question is about the well-known dissonance between democratic majority decision-making, immoral decisions by the majority, and someone who will decide that a decision is immoral (and decide by majority vote?) and overturn it. And between a body that will supervise the supervisors and vice versa…
Of course, I am writing in the clear context of the parliamentary-legal situation in Israel, in which the Supreme Court invalidates “immoral/disproportionate” laws and it is clearly apparent that it itself is burdened with a leftist agenda, while the people are more right-wing. There is no shortage of examples, such as the cancellation of a neighborly procedure, the expulsion of infiltrators, etc. etc. And the right is furious. And it seems that many times rightly so.
However, the alternative is unclear – can the majority decide everything? To deprive anyone who disagrees with the laws of the state of their property? To exile anyone who thinks there is no divine intervention in the world? 🙂 Of course not..
What is proportionality? And who will define it, the majority? And who will supervise the majority if it does not act proportionally? And who will supervise the supervisor if he overreacts in his intervention? And who decided whether he overreacts or not?
Is there any way out of this seemingly insoluble vicious circle?
I would be very happy to read your comments on the subject, whether they have already been written or will be written.