[cherrycapital]

I have no problem with having unelected people in black robes legislate as long as they are protecting individual freedom from the state. Democracy is a means, not an end. When democracy is inconsistent with individual freedom, it is democracy that must yield. The whole point of having a Bill of Rights was to make certain things vote-proof. As Justice Robert Jackson said:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943))

When you study the founding fathers--everyone up to about Andrew Jackson--it is striking how little they had to say about democracy. Some of them even used it as an epithet. They knew that unlimited majority rule is as bad as any other sort of tyranny--worse, in fact, because it is harder to fight.

[Arkinsaw]

I have no problem with having unelected people in black robes legislate as long as they are protecting individual freedom from the state.

It is not their duty to legislate either for our own good or for tyranny. They are not put there to legislate, only the legislative branch has that power.

I am surprised that someone here has no problem with a branch of government taking on the powers of another branch as long as its for our own good. Thats a very liberal philosophy.

I am a strong advocate of individual liberty, almost to the point of libertarianism sometimes. But I am also a strong advocate of division of power and checks and balances. I'm not for "outcome based" government.

[stop_fascism]

The problem is who decides what is "protecting individual freedom". For esample, this very enlightened court has decided that "diversity" somehow promotes individual freedom. What happens when a less enlghtened court decides that segregation promotes individual freedom? You're putting to much power in the hands of too few people, then trusting to the good will of those people. If history teaches anything, it is to never trust in the good will of an oligarchy.