The Supreme Court rulings represent the tyranny of the minority
The Supreme Court rulings represent the tyranny of the minority
Max Boot 5-7 minutes 6/25/2022
Everyone knows that the Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority. That’s why they built so many checks and balances into the Constitution. What’s less well known is that they were also afraid of the tyranny of the minority. That’s why they scrapped the Articles of Confederation, which required agreement from 9 of 13 states to pass any laws, and enacted a Constitution with much stronger executive authority.
In Federalist No. 22 , Alexander Hamilton warned that giving small states like Rhode Island or Delaware “equal weight in the scale of power” with large states like “Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York” violated the precepts of “justice” and “common-sense.” “The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller,” he predicted, arguing that such a system contradicts “the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.”
Hamilton’s nightmare has become the reality of 21st-century America. We are living under minoritarian tyranny, with smaller states imposing their views on the larger through their disproportionate sway in the Senate and the electoral college — and therefore on the Supreme Court. To take but one example: Twenty-one states with fewer total people than California have 42 Senate seats . This undemocratic, unjust system has produced the new Supreme Court rulings on gun control and abortion.
These are issues on which public opinion is lopsidedly in favor on what, for want of a better word, we might call the “liberal” side. Following the Uvalde, Tex., shooting, a recent poll showed that 65 percent of Americans want stricter gun controls; only 28 percent are opposed. Public opinion is just as clear on abortion: Fifty-four percent of Americans want to preserve Roe v. Wade and only 28 percent want to overturn it. Fifty-eight percent want abortion to be legal in most or all cases.
Yet the Supreme Court’s hard-right majority just overruled a New York law that made it difficult to get a permit to carry a gun, while upholding a Mississippi law that banned all abortions after 15 weeks. This represents a dramatic expansion of gun rights and an equally dramatic curtailment of abortion rights.
Now, the Supreme Court has no obligation to follow the popular will. It is charged with safeguarding the Constitution. But it is hard for any disinterested observer to have any faith in what the right-wing justices are doing. They are not acting very conservatively in overturning an abortion ruling ( Roe v. Wade ) that is 49 years old and a New York state gun-control statute that is 109 years old . In both cases, the justices rely on dubious readings of legal history that have been challenged by many scholars to overturn what had been settled law.
Conservatives can plausibly argue that liberal justices invented a constitutional right to abortion, but how is that different from what conservative justices have done in inventing an individual right to carry guns that is also nowhere to be found in the Constitution? The Supreme Court did not recognize an individual right to bear arms until 2008 — 217 years after the Second Amendment was enacted expressly to protect “well-regulated” state militia. The Second Amendment hasn’t changed over the centuries, but the composition of the court has.
The majority conveniently favors state’s rights on abortion but not on guns. It is obvious that the conservative justices (who are presumably antiabortion rights and pro-gun rights) are simply enacting their personal preferences, just as liberal justices (who are presumably pro-choice and pro-gun control) do.
So, if the Supreme Court is going to be a forum for legislating, shouldn’t it respect the views of two-thirds of the country? But our perverse political system has allowed a militant, right-wing minority to hijack the law. As an Economist correspondent points out , “5 of the 6 conservative Supreme Court justices were appointed by a Republican Senate majority that won fewer votes than the Democrats” and “3 of the 6 were nominated by a president who also won a minority of the popular vote.”
The situation is actually even more inequitable: In all likelihood, Roe would not have been overturned if then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had not broken with precedent by refusing to grant President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a vote in 2016. McConnell brazenly held the seat open for President Donald Trump to fill. Now Trump’s appointee, Neil M. Gorsuch, is part of the five-justice majority that has overturned Roe . (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the other five justices to uphold the Mississippi abortion law but not to overrule Roe .)
Public faith in the Supreme Court is down to a historic low of 25 percent , and there’s a good reason why it keeps eroding. We are experiencing what the Founders feared: a crisis of governmental legitimacy brought about by minoritarian tyranny. And it could soon get a whole lot worse. In his concurring opinion in the abortion case, Justice Clarence Thomas called on the court to overturn popular precedents upholding a right to contraception, same-sex relationships and marriage equality. So much for Hamilton’s hope that “the sense of the majority should prevail.”
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
"So much for Hamilton’s hope that “the sense of the majority should prevail.”"
So much agony over the idea that a majority of wolves can't vote sheep for dinner.
... and without considering that the other side has been put upon for one or two hundred years, your side feels it lost so hey, time for riots.
The Supreme Court has never, ever had an obligation to follow the popular will. That's not the Constitutional purpose for SCOTUS.
It never has and never should. A court that rules by opinion polling. That's insane.
This will not sustain. Riots in the streets at some point? why not if thats what it ends up taking to get rid of minority tyranny. .
Just because some liberals have their knockers twisted now doesn't mean the thing won't sustain for another 200 + years.
Not the first time nor the last.
That line sounds like it came straight from some left wing nut job site.
Its probably beyond [deleted] but the country will not survive in the 21st century, in an era of instantaneous mass communication, with a political system that gives a minority permanent power over the majority.
We should probably rewrite the constitution as soon as possible.
Maybe something like give the larger states three senators and keep the smaller states at two. That would create some balance that is missing now.
Funny how a few SCOTUS rulings magically are signals for the end times amongst some liberals, all ready to blow the whole thing up because they didn't get their way.
Good luck with that. I think that there have been around 11,000 amendments proposed and 27 accepted since 1789.
%20
You won't get past 'Pencil, quill, ball-point, cursive, font, parchment, bond, or color' with the left's fragmentation.
You want one party rule go to China or Russia.
The Constitution will not be rewritten. There isn't even enough support on any issue to get an Amendment passed.
It is definitely beyond you comprehension that flyover country doesn't exist to support debtor states like CA and NY with food, oil, gas, and water. They are not going to be silenced and left 3 or 4 states dictate everything.
So what purpose will the House serve, since you are doing away with the very thing that makes the Senate unique?
[deleted]
I call that a "Hissy Fit". Democrats had one in November 2016 (and it continues today) when Trump won the election. Now the courts (Federal and State) are turning on the progressive liberals and now a new round of hissy fits are happening.
yep!
When some liberals lose, they like to pretend the whole system is screwed up and want to shitcan the whole thing because they are incapable of acting like adults.
Kind of like the liberals wanting to do away with the Electoral College when Trump won but suddenly they're all good with it after 2020. Now I've seen a few of these morons calling for the SCOTUS to be scrapped.
Hypocrisy at it's best.
As an argument against what I have said, your comment is non existent. As filler propaganda I guess it is something.
You do realize I made no comment TO you.
And yet here you are. I guess my comment is so "non existent" that you couldn't just scroll by and felt the need to respond. And you couldn't even respond to what I said. Just more pointless blathering. What's wrong John, feeling left out today?
When liberals don't like something, it all of a sudden becomes unfair and outdated.
and most of them don't fully understand why it was put in place or exists.
[deleted]
The Supreme Court is an autocratic institution that imposes its will onto the country based on intellectual justifications in an undemocratic manner. SCOTUS is not about democracy.
The filibuster rules in the Senate protects majority rule democracy. Requiring consent by 3/5ths (60 Senators) ensures that a majority of the population is being represented. Eliminating the filibuster threatens majority rule democracy.
The make up of the Senate was intended to eliminate the possibility of gerrymandering and to blunt political parties using ideological votes to weaken or subvert majority rule democracy. That's why the filibuster in the Senate is critically important for democracy.
When Democrats removed the filibuster from court nominations, Democrats seriously weakened majority rule democracy. Democrats abandoned majority rule democracy for the political expediency of controlling the autocratic, undemocratic SCOTUS. Democrats killed democracy in the Senate. And apparently Democrats aren't finished killing democracy elsewhere in government or the country. Democrats want to be autocrats.
Your usual projection, deflection, denial, and delusion.
You are a fairly intelligent guy. I am surprised you formulated something so obviously wrong.
It would be mathematically possible to have a group of sixty senators and still have that number represent less than half of the American people.
60 senators represents a majority of senators, many of which come from low population states, not a majority of the population. .
Senators represent the states they come from..
Representatives represent the people of the district they come from...
Senators do not represent the population at all...
Civics 101 level stuff...
Q. 24: Who Does a U.S. Senator Represent?
Who does a U.S. Senator represent? Answer: All people of the state. The following is a full explanation of the USCIS question: U.S. Senators Represent Everyone in Their State. Today, a
=====================================
Go try and find someone who doesnt know what they are doing.
Don't have to, you do the best job of that I've ever seen...
Senators represent the State and the states interests to the Federal Government... Just because they are elected does NOT mean they represent the people... (although the politicians like to claim it is so, it isn't)
This is expressly stated in the constitution... (just ask any actual senator)
The original filibuster rule required the consent of 66 Senators. The filibuster was put in place to protect the idea of majority rule democracy.
And if 39 Senators can represent a majority of the country's population then the states they represent have become too large. That's little different than gerrymandering House districts. Time to redraw the map more equitably.
Have you actually read what you linked to? Obviously not...
Absolutely correct, Senators no matter how they get into office represent their state government in the senate and not the individual citizens...
This is why there are two for each state irregardless of the population of said state, they represent the STATE, not the citizens of that state... Note the highlighted portion in red, the Constitution directly says that the Senators represent the States, not the population of the state...
All this from your own linkage John.... Now tell me who knows what they are doing?
There is nothing in anything you just wrote or copied that says Senators do not represent people. The distinction is that they represent all of the people of a state rather than the limited number in a Congressional district. They still represent people, or do you think they represent cows and trees?
You just don't get it, just because they are now elected by the people doesn't mean that their duties and functions under the constitution changes John...
Ok I'll put it another way, the only way it could be said they represent the people of a state...
BY AND THROUGH THEIR STATE LEGISLATURES/GOVERNMENT....
And we all know how well state government represents the people they are supposed to be serving....
Factually, there are like three levels of government between the People and the Senate, where the is a direct connection for the People to their Representative...
It's been this way since the Constitution was approved... Senators represent the state government, no matter how they get into the post...
Your phantasy wishes in the way it is notwithstanding...
You are presenting what is basically a semantical argument.
Near the top of the article the author says, as you do, that Senators do not represent people. Later down the article he presents a quote saying that they do.
Of course senators represent people, when some senator brags about why he voted a certain way , he will often mention the wishes of the "people" of his state.
States are comprised of people. If a given state had no people it wouldnt be a state for long, would it? A state barren of people would be incorporated into another state.
I'm stating the constitution and no matter how many opinions you proffer, they are nothing but opinions...
Senators do not represent citizens directly, they represent their states directly...
You are the one making the semantical argument and offering opinions to back it up not me...
I offer the law as stated in the constitution, the only source that counts...
But your argument is pretty revealing in how a liberal thinks, as twisted as that might be...
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the United States is a direct democracy.
I know you know this, but for context: the Senate represents the states while the House represents the population, but in both cases this is representative democracy. Direct democracy would mean we would have no House or Senate and people would vote directly on issues.
I think JR appreciates the practical need for representative democracy but believes the Senate should represent the population (rather than the states) as does the House.
NO, that is all you offer - OPINIONS.
The 17th Amendment made Senators directly accountable to the voters - and - not accountable to state legislatures. In that respect the role of Senator did change from representing state legislatures in Congress to representing the people of the state.
Political bloviators hail the 17th amendment as a 'victory' for democracy. But the ultimate consequence (intended or not) has been to weaken decentralized government. The Constitution deliberately established a decentralized government where Federal government was required to share governing authority and power with state governments. Weakening decentralized government has allowed the Federal government to become more autocratic and less democratic which is what the Constitution was intended to prevent.
The United States is a republic of separate, independent, sovereign states. That's what the name 'United States' actually means. We are not the Federal Republic of America; we are the United States of America.
Yes, I was aware. I was addressing JR's tyranny of the minority comment, as if were relevant to the issue. I believe we are representative democracy specifically to avoid rule by the idiocy of the masses.
Also, if there's a thing called tyranny of the minority, there's also a tyranny of the majority, wherein belief that because they are the majority, they can justify ignoring the concerns of the minority. Given the political Left, it would go further than simply ignoring however, in my opinion.
semantics. The senators represent the people of the state as a whole, not buildings or forests or animals .
I dont particularly mind the nit picking as long as we stay in touch with reality. A given state would not exist without its residents.
Nope.
Senators represent the governing authority of a state through consent of the people living in the state. State governments are not obsolete or an anachronism of the past.
Correct.
Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators represented the governing authority of a state through consent of the state legislature. A Senators' oath of office was to protect and defend the Constitution of their state. In the Senate, state Constitutions took precedence over the Federal Constitution.
The Senate was not intended to represent the interests of the people. It was intended to represent the interest of the entire state..
On this you are correct. I would modify it as follows:
The Senate was intended to represent the interests of each state and the nation as a whole; and each state is to act in the best interest of its residents.
In principle, the founders established the House to represent the people and Senate to represent the states. And Congress as a whole is to do what is best for the nation.
How many states do not have people ? How many states would exist without a population?
The number of people in each state is irrelevant as far as the Senate is concerned. That is also why your comment about percentages of people represented by the Senate in Senate legislative maters is also irrelavent.
These are articles by the NY Times, the Washington Post, NY Mag, and Vox, all of which are respected sources.
Only to the woke and TDS riddled.
Infowars and the Daily Caller dont count.
Who is the "their" in that sentence?
and none of them are Relevant.
I don't know. I didn't write it
Never said they did, John. I'm only going by your perception that left wing rags are considered respected.
I simply told you by whom.
Ever noticed how great everything was regarding the Electoral College and the US Senate when Democrats were controlling Congress for decades?
Amazingly, this 200+ year-old 'issue' only became an issue when Democrats didn't get their way!
None. A state cannot exist unless it has a population.
Why do you ask?
The 'people' are the 'their' in that sentence.
Why do you ask?
US Senators represent people.
They also represent the interests of the states.
What is the issue, John? The order?
The CotUS defined a bicameral legislative body consisting of the House and the Senate. The House was designed to represent the people per population, regardless ( conceptually ) of state . The Senate was designed to represent the people in terms of the states.
From Federalist #62
Do you disagree (somehow)? The majority of the people refers to the House while the majority of the states refers to the Senate.