Talk:Undemocratic

Why is the recent decision by the Ca. Supreme Court striking down gay marriage ban considered checks and balances? Million voted 8 years earlier and the initiative passed. 4 unelected judges decide for millions. Some would call that Democratic? When the people will has been usurped, I certainly feel it is undemocratic. I think the original post should stand. Next, someone will say suing Ralph Nader off the ballot is the American way.--jp 15:05, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

"Why is the recent decision by the Ca. Supreme Court striking down gay marriage ban considered checks and balances?" The judiciary striking down an unconstitutional law is the very definition of checks and balances. You can argue that it is undemocratic, but then so is the electoral college, the Senate (100 people making laws for 300 million, based merely on one single vote covering the total of the Senator's actions, once every six years?), and, indeed the government in general. We don't live in a democracy, in the strictest sense of the word, we live in a Republic. Fyezall 16:23, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I am curious to know how you feel about Hillary losing? She had more votes than BO but BO has that silly thing called delegates that gives him the nomination. Undemocratic as well?

You could call it that I guess. It's much like the electoral college. If Obama's victory in the primaries was undemocratic, than Bush's in 2000 certain was as well. Fyezall 18:13, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

It was the "will of the people" to have Al Gore as president in 2000. But it's the electoral college that we go by and therefore the "will of the people" wasn't carried out. Likewise, our Constitution created the third branch--judiciary--who have the power of judicial review. That's part of democracy. The United States, thankfully, doesn't simply go by the majority, but works as well to protect the rights of the minority.

Now, if you want to yell at unelected judges, do you also want to overturn Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka? Or do you agree with Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson? --Jareddr 15:49, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Even undemocratic has two sides to the same coin. Maybe Ca. judges will rule that Communism is a better system of government, since they get to decide for the citizens. Jesus was not liberal.--jp 16:21, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

And maybe the people of Kansas will decide that segregation worked better and overturn it. Or the white majority of South Carolina will decide that slavery worked best, and, well, majority rules. Or, heck, Missouri may decide that freedom of the press shouldn't be a freedom, and vote and strike it from the list. I mean, according to your standpoint, nothing can stop the will of the majority in the United States, which is a democracy (even though it's technically not).

And re: Jesus---civil rights, fighting for the homeless, the poor, the less fortunate, caring for the earth, pacifism and loving our enemies---sounds like a giant LIBERAL to me. Why don't you create a userbox stating Jesus is a conservative and you can put that on your userpage?--Jareddr 16:32, 11 July 2008 (EDT)