Law too fast/slow for the people?

https://www.123rf.com/photo_64818709_fast-track-law-service-and-lawyer-services-concept-as-a-rocket-moving-a-justice-scale-as-a-symbol-of.html

From The ECONOMIST, an end-of-term report on the Supreme Court

“Breathtaking change marked the Supreme Court term that began last October and wrapped up this week. For St Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century theologian and philosopher, the majority’s bold moves would be alarming. Each time the law’s foundation is shaken, he wrote, its “binding power…is diminished”. Though it is sometimes necessary to rejig the law, Aquinas cautioned, there is good reason to be wary of changing too much, too quickly.”

So, if these rulings are against the majority view and cultural norms, will the other branches of government respond? On Guns, Congress did actually pass some legislation this month while New York has passed emergency legislation to ban guns from many public places, following the Supreme Court ruling which struck down the state's restrictions. 

I would expect to see the same thing happen on abortion, environment and other issues. I understand that our electoral system has been impacted by gerrymandering and the structural issues of the senate. But it seems there is room for higher voter turnout and participation to effect change if it’s desired by the majority.

"On June 24th, in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, the justices eliminated the constitutional right to abortion.

An arrogation of judicial power also characterised Justice Thomas’s methodology in his majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, the landmark Second Amendment case decided on June 23rd. 

On June 30th, in West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, the court sharply limited the epa’s power to regulate the millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases discharged by coal-burning power plants each year."

"In Egbert v Boule, the court told an innkeeper he could not sue a border-patrol officer who had, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, entered his property without a warrant and assaulted him. 

Vega v Tekoh found that defendants may not sue police officers who neglect to read them their Miranda warnings in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 

And Shinn v Ramirez concluded that a defendant who had received terrible representation could not vindicate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because a second lousy lawyer had failed to press that claim at the appropriate time."