[66fm472tjy7]

> and there's absolutely nothing that can be done to stop them

Congress could pass laws saying that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, that states cannot forbid abortions, etc.

If you think that these rulings are not plausible interpretations of the law, Congress can even define the size of the court[0]. They could pack the court with judges who will interpret the law in their favor.

It is my understanding that the Democratic Party that holds the majority in both chambers claims to be in favor of these policies, so why aren't they taking action?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

[diordiderot]

It's difficult when the balance of power is skewed so heavily to the right.

CA senator represents ~10000000

WY senator represents ~200000

[laverya]

That determines who has control. However, the Democrats currently have control despite this, if only barely.

So the question remains - why don't they just do what the court has said they should, and pass a law?

[taylodl]

See my answer above. It comes down to the filibuster. That's a procedural rule making it so that the Democrats do not, in fact, currently have control. They have to find 10 Republicans to "come across the aisle" in order to get legislation on the floor for a vote. Getting those Senators to come across the aisle is known as politicking. That's just the way the system works.

Democrats do have the power to change those procedural rules, but there's huge downsides in doing so.

Bottom line - don't look for easy solutions to complex political problems. They're likely to be loaded with unintended consequences.

[taylodl]

Senate rules. Having a simple majority in the Senate doesn't mean you can ram-rod through your agenda. You need 60 votes for legislation to reach the floor for and up and down vote. The Democrats theoretically have 51 (including Kamala!), and a couple of them haven't been too reliable. So no, the Democrats can't do "anything they want."

They could end the filibuster - but that would likely backfire. End the filibuster now right before Summer recess and the Fall election cycle where not much gets done? Probably not a wise move, especially if the Republicans regain control of the senate and now you've just handed them the reigns of unbridled power. Probably not a good move. That's why the filibuster stays.

Our problem really isn't so much that our Congress is deadlocked. Heck, I argue that deadlock is actually a preferable state. Otherwise these bozos would be sowing chaos on a daily basis. The game that's changed is using procedural rules to steal supreme court justice nominations from one president and giving them to another. Trump seized that opportunity and to maximize his legacy and influence chose the youngest and most controversial judges he could get through the nominations.

I know many liberals who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I tried to explain to them, to no avail, what would happen with regards to the Supreme Court should Trump win. I was pooh-poohed. Repeatedly told I was over-sensationalizing things. I've since received apologies from many of them but who cares? The damage has been done and will continue for much of the remainder of our lives.

There is a way out of this mess, but right now America is too polarized for that solution to be viable. Supreme Court justices can be impeached and removed from the bench - it's even been done before. But you need 2/3 of the Senate onboard to do it. I don't realistically see that happening any time for the next 20 years, if ever, and by then the damage wrought will be so severe that I'm afraid America will be unrecognizable.

Bottom line - America was already in decline. This Supreme Court is just going to accelerate that decline. If anything they might jolt Democrats out of their complacency and turning their noses up at any candidate they don't think is absolutely perfect. Who knows? Maybe something good will come out of this after all.