Something I just realized that might be germane to this little discussion: I am European, not American.
We often use the word "democracy" as the vast eco-system underlying and upholding modern liberal societies in general, not just the elected parts. Whether that's correct use of the word - I suspect you think it's not - I leave open for discussion. If you want I can use the narrow definition in which case we are mostly in agreement.
Judges should exercise due caution and be mindful of their obvious biases.
However, this works both ways. Officials cater to their often not so well-informed electorate and this group, The People, is as susceptible to biases - if not more - as the so called elites are. Both should exercise restraint and be mindful of their biases, not just the judiciary. It takes a populist to claim The People are always right.
As you can tell I am also very much an amateur. I suggest you don't approach me as someone who has studied political science because I'll have a hard time keeping up.
I didn’t know this was something europeans did, because it’s alien to how americans historically have used the term. During the founding, there were explicit debates about democracies versus republics. The Democratic party originated as what europeans might call a “populist” party. And over time we changed the original constitutional structure to make it more democratic and less of a republic (such as direct election of senators).
> People, is as susceptible to biases - if not more - as the so called elites are. Both should exercise restraint and be mindful of their biases, not just the judiciary. It takes a populist to claim The People are always right.
But the biases of people are legitimate, while the biases of the elites are illegitimate. If the people vote for mass deportations, for example, the only job of the elite should be to figure out how to do it efficiently while protecting legally recognized rights (but not trying to undermine the policy by invoking protecting rights as a pretext). As usual, the scandinavians have figured this out.
I can see how it is a possible source of confusion which is something we can ill afford in this already treacherous waters.
> But the biases of people are legitimate, while the biases of the elites are illegitimate.
> [...]
> while protecting legally recognized rights
Agreed, provided that by "elites" we mean the branches of government not just "successful people". I guess we're mostly in agreement. I'm just cranky about The People because in my country they are quite ... self-destructive, but that is a topic for another time.
We often use the word "democracy" as the vast eco-system underlying and upholding modern liberal societies in general, not just the elected parts. Whether that's correct use of the word - I suspect you think it's not - I leave open for discussion. If you want I can use the narrow definition in which case we are mostly in agreement.
Judges should exercise due caution and be mindful of their obvious biases.
However, this works both ways. Officials cater to their often not so well-informed electorate and this group, The People, is as susceptible to biases - if not more - as the so called elites are. Both should exercise restraint and be mindful of their biases, not just the judiciary. It takes a populist to claim The People are always right.
As you can tell I am also very much an amateur. I suggest you don't approach me as someone who has studied political science because I'll have a hard time keeping up.