4 ms·
They’re not supposed to be representative. Democracy isn’t perfect, and they’re a check against some of the failings of the system. Frankly, I’m shocked at ho
by catiopatio 3y ago
They’re not supposed to be representative.
Democracy isn’t perfect, and they’re a check against some of the failings of the system.
Frankly, I’m shocked at how upset some of you are over racial discrimination being banned.
- solardev 3y agoThere's not really checks and balances when all three branches are in cahoots for the benefit of party over people, primarily won through electoral shenanigans and political games. We literally have a system that continously overrules the will of the majority with a small group of electoral elites, justified using some byzantine algorithm of electoral boundaries. That isn't a democracy, it's a farce. I don't really care about affirmative action much one way or the other. I care about the lack of representation in my so called democracy, and the Supremes are a huge part of that problem.
- catiopatio 3y ago> We literally have a system that continously overrules the will of the majority … That isn't a democracy, it's a farce. Avoiding the tyranny of the majority is a major reason we intentionally don’t have direct democracy.
- solardev 3y agoThrough a legal framework enumerating basic inalienable rights, perhaps. But substituting a tyranny of the majority for a tyranny of the minority isn't an improvement.
- fzeroracer 3y ago[flagged]
- catiopatio 3y agoThat’s a reductive view of the laws and cases involved. The cakeshop case was about compelled speech, and the conservative justices’ politics are not “neocon”.
- fzeroracer 3y agoDiscrimination is discrimination, no matter how you try to slice it. The compelled speech argument was a line of bullshit to discriminate against customers because it all hinged on their religious right to discriminate against people they did not like. That's the crux of it all.