As to point a), I think you should check some recent polls. I believe you will find that a strong majority of Americans do, in fact, support efforts to curb climate change. And while that may be a more recent development, the idea of *some* sort of "universal health care" has been wildly popular for some time. Yes, the details matter - people largely don't want Bernie Sanders' compulsory Medicare-for-all, but they generally do favor Medicare-for-more or Medicare-for-whomever-wants-it. And though it is definitely a reversal from the opinion of 10 years ago, Americans now do largely want to preserve the ACA.

As to point b), we both agree that the "will of the people", i.e. the majority, is not absolute. That's where people's rights come into play, which limits the laws that Congress and state legislatures can pass. Still, there's a broad universe of legitimate legislation since the Constitution prohibits rather than allows on this point. I'm willing to grant that Roe v. Wade may have been an overreach, and perhaps other decisions that liberals prize, if there is indeed no Constitutional basis for taking such things out of the hands of (or placing them in the hands of) legislatures. How do you feel about, say, "Citizens United"? Was that not an example of the courts invalidating a legitimate law with reasonable provisions to ensure more fair and democratic elections? Or "Rucho v. Common Cause": should the court really have been prevented from stepping in to prevent blatant abuse of legislative power to further entrench political power? Is there any way conservatives and liberals can come to agreements on what constitutes judicial overreach, independent of our desired political outcomes?