Same about corporate powers, especially in US where consumer protection seems to be a lot weaker than in EU, even if US has a lot more regulations.
I got ganged up on when this was first done in the FCC. I said it will flip flop depending on who is in power and what their motivations are. Here we are 15 years later and that is exactly what happened. Until Title III is written there will be no real change. We should not let the executive branch have law judge and jury authority. It was not designed that way, it fundamentally breaks the separation of duties. We should also not let the congress and senate and judiciary cede their authority because it is convenient at the moment.
Adopting a strategy that wouldn't have worked in 1980 and probably wont work in 2080 unless the country is literally torn down and rebuilt from the ground up doesn't seem like an effective strategy. The supreme court has never just been a cold arbiter of law and they certainly aren't acting thus now. The intention isn't for congress to do their job the purpose is to gut regulation so that the parties who hired the justices by proxy can profit.
Because of the construction of our system your desired legislation can be stymmied by lawmakers representing barely half of states represention 25% of the population so ultimately 13% of us. Worse any meaningful parts are liable to be horse traded away for more vital concerns which are almost always going to be either a crisis or immediate budgetary matters.
See the last 40 years. Imagine your cow died decades ago and you were still milking its bones.
I mean, that's an exaggeration, but major decisions like this being decided by the courts is fundamentally wrong. If the majority of the population disagree with this court ruling we ought to very simply head to congress and pass a new law to overturn it. But we won't and everyone knows it. Not to draw too many parallels but it feels similar to the recent overturn of Roe v Wade. It feels like we, as a population, are powerless to do something the majority wants.
> the people can always amend the Constitution
My point is that the people cannot do that. Yes, the technical ability exists, but the chances of getting anything passed is very low. So we exist in a limbo where everything gets decided by the courts.