Supreme Irony?

By effectively stopping the US government, curtailing coal burning to generate electricity, that country's Supreme Court has just completed a rapid hat-trick of anti-society rulings (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/30/us-supreme-court-epa-decision-devastating-humanity). None of the Supreme Court's recent rulings (stopping some states limiting the carrying of guns; overturning the Roe versus Wade legislation on abortion rights and upholding the right of coal-producing states to carry on mining and burning this most-polluting fossil fuel) appear to have popular support. All are likely to increase deaths of US citizens. This last ruling, however, has world-wide repercussions. The US is currently the world's second (behind only China) producer of 'greenhouse gas' emissions. Historically, the US is still in a clear 'pole position'. How can any country set itself up as a global climate leader, when it can't even get its own domestic act in order? Limiting climate change to 'only' 1.5 degrees above Industrial levels (we are already at 1.1 degrees above), suddenly looks even more unattainable. This is in spite of North America's recent experiences of the effects of climate change. Forgive me if I am misreading things. I had thought that the US Supreme Court was created to limit the power of politicians (an untrustworthy bunch?) to inflict damage on their general population, whilst they were in power (i.e. between elections). Lawyers don't, however, actually seem to be any more trustworthy. An additional trouble with the membership of the Supreme Court, is that the appointments are for life or until that individual chooses to retire. This seems to be the most profoundly undemocratic system that could have been devised. Such folk can be and are dangerous.