Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Agree. But the SCOTUS appears to have no regard anymore for the will of the people nor previous precedents set by the court. They, along with the Senate, have tremendous power to do what they feel in an undemocratic fashion. And if you aren't democratic, then what are you?
|
Judicial independence is a principle in Canada too - it's deliberately undemocratic, yet nobody would consider us to be not a democracy for it. And what we're seeing in the US is in effect a consequence of judges being selected by the elected whenever a judge dies. It is arguably a case of too much democracy. One could argue that it's a case of not enough democracy as well, and both are probably correct - a less politicized judiciary would make less political decisions, and a more politicized judiciary would better reflect the will of the citizens. I would prefer the former, as it enables the judiciary to be a bulwark against tyranny of the majority.
The US system is democratic, but not proportional. As is the Canadian one, btw. Also of note is that an "elected dictatorship" is a democracy, not a dictatorship. One might argue that proportionality is a requirement for democracy, but that argument fails to retain consistency with common definitions. One could, however, argue that proportionality is a requirement for
greater democracy, and indeed that argument is one that I've often put forth myself.
It is easy to conflate constitutional liberalism with democracy, because they often go hand in hand. The USA is suffering defects in both its democracy and its constitutional liberalism. Its constitution and judiciary don't do enough to protect human rights, and its legislative and executive are disproportionate enough that they can enact unpopular legislation that infringes on those unprotected rights.