I understand that the founding fathers intended the Supreme Court to interpret the law - and not make the law. But these same founding fathers expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a pure democracy. This was to protect us against the "tyranny of the majority". I agree with this. So does Ron Paul who said: "Pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty."
In California, a 51% vote of the people is all that is needed to alter the constitution. If this isn't mob rule than I don't know what is.
So given the choice between "legislation from the bench" and "legislation from the mob", I'll take the former.
2 comments:
I understand your depression being on the losing end of an election, as I had a losing percentage of about 100% on Tuesday.
So now you see yourself as a modern day Plato. When Socrates, his mentor, was democratically disposed of, he disposed of democracy, and preferred of a Republic ruled by philosophers. Likewise, Dave Ford, smarter and wiser than the masses, chooses a Republic ruled by judges that are smarter than the silly plebes.
I don't need to comment further on your elitism, as its evident by your own writing. Clearly you think the people are morons. I suppose you support a test prior to voting? Maybe a poll tax? How about if a person simply disagrees with you on gays they should be banned from voting.
But again, you frame this situation as boolean when its clearly not. Its a bit ironic that you mock G.W. Bush and then mimic him. There are many options OTHER than mob rule or judicial rule.
1) Legislative rule (aka democratic republic). In fact that is how the constitutional framers intended it. Legistlature passes a law, executive implements it, and judicial interprets it.
2) Supermajority Referendum. So it takes only 51% to alter the Consititution. Change that (after Prop 8 is reversed if you like) to 60% or 2/3 majority. It appears that all it takes is for you spend 70 million on advertising you can win the referendum.
3) Benevolent Dictator aka President/Governor. Justices aren't elected they are appointed. Wouldn't you rather these decisions be made by an elected executive? I guess you only would if they agree with you.
So there you go Dave. Take a Zoloft and detach yourself from the situation. Then you can think rationally again.
OK Jordan. I have taken some time. I am now cooled off. And I stand by my statement. What I said was: "given the choice between 'legislation from the bench' and 'legislation from the mob', I'll take the former." Those other 3 options you mentioned (Legislative rule, Supermajority Referendum, Benevolent Dictator) are all better than mob rule. But in California, they do not appear likely in the near future.
Post a Comment