I have much more faith in democracy, flawed as it is, than the Supreme Court. > Surely you see the point of the US being a republic; rule by law, not by men.

I have much more faith in democracy, flawed as it is, than the Supreme Court. > Surely you see the point of the US being a republic; rule by law, not by men. Men wrote the laws. > In your vision of the supreme court, if the majority decided they wanted to lock up some minorty and send them to gas chambers, the court couldn't do anything to stop them because the populace would vote for it in a referendum. That kind of thing has happened countless times in history in countries that didn't have a strong court system capable of protecting people's rights from the tyrrany of the majority. I agree the Supreme Court has effectively protected minority rights: the minority of wealthy property owners. I'm somewhat confident that the historical list of Supreme Court injustices that served to oppress vulnerable minorities (e.g. Dred Scott and Japanese internment) is longer than the list of times the Supreme Court has lifted those same minorities up.