But now you’re arguing by extension that the judicial decree with respect to abortion is the will of the people. If so, then that expresses the danger of democracy more and more rather than (as you implied) the epoch thereof being undemocratic.
As is noted in several publications (including “The Conscience of a Conservative” in particular), the move towards democracy leads to tyranny of the majority. And if, again, socialism and democracy are actually “one and the same” as Woodrow Wilson put it, then the US Constitution is antithetical to this democracy.
“But now you’re arguing by extension that the judicial decree with respect to abortion is the will of the people. If so, then that expresses the danger of democracy more and more rather than (as you implied) the epoch thereof being undemocratic.
As is noted in several publications (including “The Conscience of a Conservative” in particular), the move towards democracy leads to tyranny of the majority. And if, again, socialism and democracy are actually “one and the same” as Woodrow Wilson put it, then the US Constitution is antithetical to this democracy.”
So because you disagree with the outcome you are disagreeing with the process that you just argued for in an earlier post?
Again I ask, what is more republican than the outcome of the SCOTUS judgement than a body of nominees who are voted on by a legislative body that is voted on by the constituents in a respective state? There is barely an element left there of a direct democracy - do you want it to be even more detached? Then a British style parliament is more suitable for your tastes, where elected representatives vote for the head of state?
Representation has to happen at some step of the process, or we are not a republic any more, merely a bureaucratic monarchy or oligarchy.