I presume that means we both think.
the judiciary has set its face against what the society, the people, the legislature, and the Governor believe is constitutional right.
G.Mason says:
And I think the author believes we have a democracy and are not a representative republic.
I strongly disagree. In the statement above, the elected representatives have voiced strong differences with the Judicial Branch. So have the people, but they only have say through their representatives.
We are supposed to be a government of We the People.
The representatives of the people (legislative and executive branches) have a responsibility to protect the people if the Judiciary is not abiding by the laws.
In this case, Judge Greer is acting as Guardian ab Litem as well as the fact the US Congress allowed the parents to have a new trial de novo.
Judiciary prudence dictates that the representatives of the people protect the rights of the people and enforce the laws.
So I just disagree that this is getting into a Democracy. If someone was lynching people in Tampa under Bishop Lynch [pun intended], then the Governor has the right to stop that, even if the courts consider that a good exercise of religious freedom.
I don't think you are right. Where in the piece does he convey that impression?
The piece argues for the executive to be co-equal with the judiciary rather than subservient to it. The executive is, typically (depending on the state) elected by the people directly (but in some cases may not be). The executive of the nation is actually elected by the filtered votes of the people in the two-part process. None of this implies "democracy and not a representative republic". But, rather, both.
He is not arguing for all decisions to be made via popular referenda.