Talk:Undemocratic

Gay marriage

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)

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)