>>> We have a Supreme Court that doesn't reflect the majority of the people at all. That can, and will, haunt us for decades to come.
>
>Some will groan at my attempt to try again, but here goes:
>
>IMHO it's not democratic to tolerate the idea that SCOTUS appointments are partisan, swinging according to the side that gets to appoint. The meme that SCOTUS has been packed liberal for ages but now may turn conservative, is in itself anti-democratic. For the pillars to function as intended, there should be bipartisan insistence that SCOTUS appointees are to be strictly legalist in applying constitution and laws. No sides, no leanings. When I read calm reports that SCOTUS voted along partisan lines on this or that, I'm amazed at the focus on payments to a blackmailing porn star rather than the possibility of a politically motivated SCOTUS. Where's the 4th Pillar on that one?
>
>What are the options if as you predict SCOTUS begins issuing antisocial rulings out of step with the majority?

Protection of civil rights and Roe vs Wade are the first coupe of things that come to mind.

>Simple: just as some Congresspeople announce plans to undo Executive Orders of POTUS, Congress can simply make new laws that undo decisions by SCOTUS.

That is correct. And that works fine as long as the GOP doesn't go about gerrymandering districts and suppressing votes which results in improper representation -- of course that is a different subject -- but yes I agree with you.

>If SCOTUS declares those new laws to be unconstitutional- which it can- then those SCOTUS justices can be impeached by the House and removed from office in Senate.

yeahhhh - but that has only happened once and I think it was in like 1805. Some of the decisions can lean left or right though -- and the court now leans to the right, whereas it *should* be leaning to the left.

>My concern would be that some people have come to regard SCOTUS as a back door avenue to enact changes that never could be passed by representatives who answer to an electorate. Pack SCOTUS and let the social engineering begin. If this mentality prevails, then you are indeed in trouble.

They don't enact laws though -- they interpret the laws. Some of those laws are ambiguous and can be interpreted from a liberal or conservative view point. If the will of the people is not being represented then the system doesn't work as it should -- which is exactly what's happened.

>Another concern would be that some see it as a given that they're the moral majority, even when (for example) Trump's bipartisan approval rating reached 52% last week. Last week he was more popular than Obama in the same week of his administration. People might like to ponder on what that means and to be careful what they wish for.

That depends upon which polls you look at - others seem it's quite a bit lower.
Plus his ratings continue to be marked by sharp divisions by gender, race and age. Women, minorities have a very low approval - -and for people under 35 only 1 in 5 approve. As we become more diverse and the younger people get older, and the people that are old die off (he seems to do well with those age 50 or older) ...well you see the direction of things to come.