🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxFF18.1oA@constant.demon.co.uk>, slangley@constant.demon.co.uk (Simon Langley) writes:
|> However, our constitution is, as you imply, not written, and for this reason,
|> the final say on our laws belongs to the elected representatives of the
|> people rather than a group of unelected Supreme Court judges.  Our system
|> has served us well for 350 years, how is the US system "safer"?

This isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Democracy is easy. It's really not *that* hard to find out what
the majority wants and then to implement it. A mob is probably the
purest form of democracy there is.

But the real measure of a civilization lies in its ability to protect
the rights of unpopular minorities against the passing, emotional
outbursts of the majority. Placing the final say in the hands of nine
unelected (but hardly unscrutinized) judges who serve for life is
essential if you are serious about individual rights.

As former Justice Brennan used to say, "The majority already have the
other two branches of government. We're here for the minority."

Read the Federalist Papers, particularly the ones by Alexander Hamilton
on the need for judges to "serve during good behavior" (i.e., for life)
for a far more eloquent explanation of this principle.

Phil