As Ed Whelan points out, Justice Ginsburg's brief dissent in Bartlett v. Strickland has a Ledbetter-like call for Congress to overrule the Court's opinion because she believes the majority opinion "severely undermines" the "estimable aim" of the Voting rights Act of 1965:

I join JUSTICE SOUTER’s powerfully persuasive dissenting opinion, and would make concrete what is implicit in his exposition. The plurality’s interpretation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is difficult to fathom and severely undermines the statute’s estimable aim. Today’s decision returns the ball to Congress’ court. The Legislature has just cause to clarify beyond debate the appropriate reading of §2.

We've had a debate on this sort of dissent before. I remain of the view that it's a pretty troubling practice if the Court wants to maintain its judicial independence.