I understand the frustration but the court decision was about a constitutional matter; whether or not the executive has the prerogative power to engage in treaty matters that would affect domestic law.
This is what the Article 50 ruling came down to. It was about the facts of the law, and not about whether or not something ought to be the case. You may argue that the executive should be able to engage in all treaty matters without seeking authority from Parliament, but the Supreme Court judged that the law means that this is not the case. I'm somewhat indifferent on this, but I've heard from many people who voted leave that they are happy that the executive prerogative powers are restricted by this precedent.
It's unfair to claim that the judges wanted to block Brexit. Maybe some of them did have this agenda, but the matter came down to a matter of the law, and not about politics. According to the law, Parliament must now pass an Act to give the execute authority to trigger Article 50. We should look upon the MPs and Lords to ensure that they pass an Act allowing this with no strings attached. If Parliament fails to do what is needed, then the people should demand a general election.
The mistake all along was that the referendum was not legally binding. The European Union Referendum Act should have provided the government with the authority and the requirement to trigger Article 50 given a leave vote. Unfortunately the referendum was only advisory.
It should be clear that the court ruling was about the law, and in fact many leave voters are happy about the restriction of the prerogative powers and the precedent that this court decision provides. We should view the law and the constitution separately from the decision to leave the EU.