3 ms·

If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. The Bill of Rights is worthless unless the courts e

If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. The Bill of Rights is worthless unless the courts enforce it. And judges are appointed experts in the law with absolute power within their jurisdiction. They’re as far from democracy as you can get. The majority can’t violate the rights of the minority as long as some enlightened people are empowered to enforce the Bill of Rights.

mmooss 1y ago
> If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. The Bill of Rights is worthless unless the courts enforce it. And judges are appointed experts in the law with absolute power within their jurisdiction. They’re as far from democracy as you can get. Only if you define democracy as mob rule and not in the modern sense of self-determination, which includes self-determination by people in the minority. Everything always depends on politics, but universal human rights has held up for centuries now. The people who instituted them had very little to work with - universal human rights as institutions were new in significant ways - we've been handed everything. We can certainly uphold it if we like. (Also, judges are appointed democratically.)
chairmansteve 1y ago
But the judges are appointed by democratically elected representatives in the USA and UK. So the judiciary is a sort of low pass filter. Filtering out fads, but responding to longer term trends in public opinion.
keybored 1y ago
> If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. If Bill can punch Bob in the face without any repercussions then nothing stops Bill from doing so. Empty truisms. All political systems exist in a framework which put constraints on actions. And everyone who wring their hands over “checks and balances” just assert that there’s something special about “voting to erase rights” versus an “enlightened” judge making a judgement to erase rights because there are laws that they are second-class citizens or Bill punching Bob in the face. But there isn’t.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
Apart from democracies usually offering the most protections of rights, your argument is all over that place. The power of judges is very restricted as they cannot rule against the law. They don't even need to be enlightened to do that. Their wiggle room lies in the interpretation, that is why laws need to be crafted with care. The law in democracies is decided by parliament or directly. It can be changed, some fundamental laws are protected where you need strong majorities. The majority will does protect your rights in most cases. And again, even with that most practical rights of people are implemented in democracies. The rule of the majority scare is mostly impotent and not very well argued.

mmooss 1y ago

> If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. The Bill of Rights is worthless unless the courts enforce it. And judges are appointed experts in the law with absolute power within their jurisdiction. They’re as far from democracy as you can get. Only if you define democracy as mob rule and not in the modern sense of self-determination, which includes self-determination by people in the minority. Everything always depends on politics, but universal human rights has held up for centuries now. The people who instituted them had very little to work with - universal human rights as institutions were new in significant ways - we've been handed everything. We can certainly uphold it if we like. (Also, judges are appointed democratically.)

chairmansteve 1y ago

But the judges are appointed by democratically elected representatives in the USA and UK. So the judiciary is a sort of low pass filter. Filtering out fads, but responding to longer term trends in public opinion.

keybored 1y ago

> If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. If Bill can punch Bob in the face without any repercussions then nothing stops Bill from doing so. Empty truisms. All political systems exist in a framework which put constraints on actions. And everyone who wring their hands over “checks and balances” just assert that there’s something special about “voting to erase rights” versus an “enlightened” judge making a judgement to erase rights because there are laws that they are second-class citizens or Bill punching Bob in the face. But there isn’t.

raxxorraxor 1y ago

Apart from democracies usually offering the most protections of rights, your argument is all over that place. The power of judges is very restricted as they cannot rule against the law. They don't even need to be enlightened to do that. Their wiggle room lies in the interpretation, that is why laws need to be crafted with care. The law in democracies is decided by parliament or directly. It can be changed, some fundamental laws are protected where you need strong majorities. The majority will does protect your rights in most cases. And again, even with that most practical rights of people are implemented in democracies. The rule of the majority scare is mostly impotent and not very well argued.