Does democracy equal majority rule?

[A18]

Why does this question matter? It's not as if democracy isn't a laughable concept.

[A18]

Not to mention this is just a court packing scheme used to keep originalists off the bench so that Republican presidents inevitably have to pick activists like Kennedy, who are of course liberal and help in their efforts to legislate from the bench.

By the way, a republic is not where the rights of the minority are respected. Securing everyone's rights can not be achieved. For example, the majority has virtually no 'right' within itself to do anything - not tax, spend, or anything else. However, there are some just things for which the majority may take and spend money, when a fitting process is exhausted.

However, that process, when exhausted, still has no right to do anything else -- it can only act in the name of justice, just an individual could, though justice itself demands that no one play God, and so a republic is formed.

People's rights are constantly violated today. They will be so long as we have government that steals money for the selfish interests of the majority, and their wishes, rather than for justice.

Perceived justice, of course, is not justice. And so the argument has to be not majority rule, but just rule. There is no objective definition of justice, but in a republic, we are individuals, so we at least argue about it instead of claiming everything is owned by the majority, an absolutely asinine concept.

[A18]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

So, when democrats get control of the senate again, how do you plan on stopping them from doing whatever they want?

They already do confirm all the ultra-liberal judges they want. Look at those two joke, non-originalists Clinton appointed to the Supreme Court.

They also pass all the liberal legislation they want. As in, Brady Bill, OBRA93, etc.

All this does is level the playing field.

[A18]

If you think the Democrats have put some bad judges up before - just wait until they are back in power and looking to avenge themselves and show how wrong the Republicans were for ending the filibuster.

Well, first of all, it isn't a "wrong." The filibuster has never been used like this. Second, I seriously don't lose to much sleep over the idea of Democrats getting back into power.

All judges the Democrats nominate are non-originalists. There's no difference, and it doesn't matter at all.

We would obviously impeach them if they did something really stupid, and if the Dems didn't join us, they'd sink in the polls.

[A18]

And we never filibustered judges that would otherwise be confirmed while we were in the minority, so this isn't a cycle. This is brand new obstructionism by the Democrats.

What's childish is the "living, breathing Constitution."

[A18]

Legal documents are not "alive." It sounds like something out of a fairy tale.

If I entire into a contract with you, can I break it because it's alive?

[A18]

Constitution is a contract between states.

The whole point to a dead Constitution is making fun of the living Constitution.

[A18]

The Constitution is a contract between states. It is a series of amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and the states are bound only to what authority they ceded to the federal government.

Making fun of something incredibly stupid is not childish.

[A18]

To the extent that the minority has rights, it is undemocratic.

[A18]

I'm not going to debate semantics. The states agreed to give the federal government certain powers. Those powers can't just change on them, exactly as in a contract.

By the way, the sky is occasionally pink, orange, and other neat colors. So, unsurprisingly, you're even wrong on that.

[A18]

Both of those statements are obviously true.

If we were not the majority, we would still agree that democracy is majority rule. I find it hilarious that some can't admit that democracy sucks.

[A18]

A system of checks and balances, of which democracy plays a part. However, I don't think unlimited debate should be one of the checks.

I used "we" not in connection to the statement "democracy sucks," but in connection to the statement that democracy is majority rule, something this poll of yours obviously reflects.

I think most people agree that pure democracy sucks.