On point a) climate change. Polling people on belief in / support for mitigation of climate change is notoriously tricky. It's like asking people whether they like apple pie. Nearly everyone says yes, until you tell them that it costs $1,000 a slice. Polls, e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/more-americans-believe-global-warming-t…
On point a) climate change. Polling people on belief in / support for mitigation of climate change is notoriously tricky. It's like asking people whether they like apple pie. Nearly everyone says yes, until you tell them that it costs $1,000 a slice. Polls, e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/more-americans-believe-global-warming-they-won-t-pay-much-n962001, indicate that folks aren't willing to pay more than ~$100/year to mitigate climate change. Support evaporates above that.
Similar polling finds that people support universal healthcare (when characterized in certain ways, e.g., covers pre-existing conditions and caps out-of-pocket), yet reject it when they learn that they'll loose access to their preferred corporate plan and choice of physician.
My personal views on Citizens United are quite conflicted, so I won't comment.
My general view is that the congress has abdicated way to much power to both the executive branch administrative authorities and to the federal courts. The former results in legislation by un-elected/mostly unaccountable administrators, the latter politicizes the judiciary. I'd much prefer that the supreme court circumscribe the rule making (aka legislative) authority of the executive administrative offices AND punt contentious political issues, e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage, back to the legislature - possibly to state legislatures. Nancy Pelosi's comment on the ACA - that "we need to pass it to learn what's in it" is a great example of abdicating lawmaking authority to the administrative branch. A court review of Chevron Deference would be nice.
On point a) climate change. Polling people on belief in / support for mitigation of climate change is notoriously tricky. It's like asking people whether they like apple pie. Nearly everyone says yes, until you tell them that it costs $1,000 a slice. Polls, e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/more-americans-believe-global-warming-they-won-t-pay-much-n962001, indicate that folks aren't willing to pay more than ~$100/year to mitigate climate change. Support evaporates above that.
Similar polling finds that people support universal healthcare (when characterized in certain ways, e.g., covers pre-existing conditions and caps out-of-pocket), yet reject it when they learn that they'll loose access to their preferred corporate plan and choice of physician.
My personal views on Citizens United are quite conflicted, so I won't comment.
My general view is that the congress has abdicated way to much power to both the executive branch administrative authorities and to the federal courts. The former results in legislation by un-elected/mostly unaccountable administrators, the latter politicizes the judiciary. I'd much prefer that the supreme court circumscribe the rule making (aka legislative) authority of the executive administrative offices AND punt contentious political issues, e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage, back to the legislature - possibly to state legislatures. Nancy Pelosi's comment on the ACA - that "we need to pass it to learn what's in it" is a great example of abdicating lawmaking authority to the administrative branch. A court review of Chevron Deference would be nice.
Agreed that the courts should "punt" on contentious issues. Just don't take it up at all. Let the voters decide.