Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
That's pretty close to how I feel about it, too. I guess the degree to which one is offended is somewhat related to the degree to which one believes that the justice system is fair.
In other words, the reason why we have elections rather than rely on courts to run society is that history has proven that courts unchecked by any external power, invariably lead to despotism, regardless of how pure they maybe in the beginning. Political power through democratic elections is a good and proper balance against rule by courts.
The dissolution of rule by democracy into despotism hasn't a history so long and colorful as court systems decay into despotism. It maybe that we have a vain hope that somehow democracy will be sufficiently dynamic to resist accretion and institutionalization of power into the hands of an hereditary leadership. This is one reason why I'd prefer not to have another Kennedy or Bush in the presidency. Or a Bayh or Gore in Congress, etc.
|
You have that a little backwards B.
Election results are the ultimate expression of "majority" rule. (Let's forget the popular vote vs. electoral college argument for now).
The majority decides who governs the country. thus the expression "majority rule."
So where does the minority fit in? (And I am referring to numerical minority, not ethnic minorities).
To protect the rights of the minority whose voice does not find expression in the election's results we have a judiciary that is supposed to act independently from the legislative and executive branches of government. It is the judiciary's function to block the executive and legislative branches from running roughshod over minorities (numerical).
I could go on, but I think you get my point.
In our system of government, the real desposts are found in the executive and legislative branches of government. And that is the reason why we have elections--to be sure that the whole bunch of scoundrels cannot hang around long enough to do any harm.
Yes, the President appoints all federal judges, so this takes away a little bit of their "independence." As history has shown, however, many Presidents have been surprised (not pleasantly so) by the 180 degree turn that some of their appointees to the bench have made after being appointed.