Do liberals think that votes by society in a direct measure are supposed to decide what should happen in a society, and not a “supreme court”? For ex if different courts have a different interpretation of something, then a direct measure settles it?
Judiciary interprets the law. Votes shape the law. In our form of democracy, they do so by choosing the legislators mostly. But in some cases they do so by choosing between a new law and an existing set of laws.
And if that’s the case I highly doubt it’s a general consensus for liberals.
I think the only thing we need to consider is that liberals want equality, equity, and liberty, while being caretakers of the planet. I don’t think that the process necessarily matters as much as the end result, and whether it was reached through fair means.
This is complicated, but I think the place to start is what purpose democracy serves. Democracy, or at least representative democracy, is not a system where the best candidate is crowd sourced. Its a system that forces candidates to be held accountable to the people they serve by allowing voting to keep them in place or remove them with as little friction as possible. There are ways to find “better” leaders, but what constitutes as better is subjective and often relative to who holds that leader accountable.
Applying this to things like judicial or other expert decisions, the same detrements follow. People aren’t experts in every field, and even extremely intelligent individuals wouldn’t be able to reasonably educate themselves on every topic required to make a modern country run. To fix this, we elect officials who either are the experts or who put those experts in place to make those decisions.
I think your question is about decisions via popular referendum vs. court decision, yes?
There’s merits to both.
Popular voting is true democracy. Especially with an appropriate voting system (e.g. run off voting), you can ensure that the maximum amount of people are happy or at least content with the decisions made by their organization.
However, this kind of referendum can be subject to the whims of the “masses”– in other words, minority rights can cease to exist if the minorities in question fail to appeal to the majority.
On the other hand, judicial oversight over policy has the benefit of being run, allegedly, by experts. We trust our courts to be staffed by introspective, pensive, and expert jurists, who can look beyond the surface of mass appeal, and make decisions informed by history, care for posterity, and philosophy.
The problem with judicial decisions is that judges are often beyond reproach by citizens. In the U.S. at least, most judicial appointments are non-democratic (this is my understanding, don’t quote me). This is done purposefully, so that judges can operate freely… and democratically voting in judges is subject to the same problems presented above when discussing referendums.
I think the best solution would be to have a sufficiently educated populace so that democratic referendums are voted on by educated, historically aware citizens with a concern for themselves, their neighbor, and the future.
No. If courts aren’t empowered to decide the law, then there is no law. “Will of the people” becomes “mob rule” if there’s nothing that binds public decision-making, and long-term planning becomes impossible if every decision is up to the electorate. Furthermore given the number of court disagreements happening currently, this would require daily voting.
If the legislature passed better written laws, the courts would not have near as much room for interpretation. But I believe the judiciary is a good thing to have in our democracy.
There is nothing inherent to liberalism that requires a direct democracy over a representative democracy. The vast majority of modern liberals do believe in an elected legislature that writes the laws, and a judiciary that interprets the laws. Voters cannot be expected (and don’t want) to be informed about every issue that affects the country, so we delegate that responsibility to our elected representatives.
I think the basic idea is that policy matters should be decided by democratic process, and that questions of interpretation or compliance are the proper function of the court system.
I don’t believe that is a general opinion of liberals. I think that liberals on net probably believe that the Supreme court should have less power than they do to get in the way of the democratic process, but not that there aren’t some things which should remain outside of said process.
No, I don’t. Crowdsourcing interpretations of the law sounds crazy to me. Your average person is not a lawyer and hasn’t got a clue how laws impact the country.
I don’t really understand the question as it is phrased. I believe in checks and balances, which is different both from believing in either the exact system of checks an balances described in the US constitution, and from believing in the system of checks and balances as it currently functions in the US.
As such, I think direct democracy can have a role to play but that doesn’t mean that it should have the deciding voice over and above the organized government (by that I mean executive, legislative, judicial branches).
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
liberal view in direct measure?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Are you asking whether we should have courts at all, and instead just decide everything by a democratic vote?
Judiciary interprets the law. Votes shape the law. In our form of democracy, they do so by choosing the legislators mostly. But in some cases they do so by choosing between a new law and an existing set of laws.
Not sure I understand.
And if that’s the case I highly doubt it’s a general consensus for liberals.
I think the only thing we need to consider is that liberals want equality, equity, and liberty, while being caretakers of the planet. I don’t think that the process necessarily matters as much as the end result, and whether it was reached through fair means.
By direct measure, do you mean the popular vote?
This is complicated, but I think the place to start is what purpose democracy serves. Democracy, or at least representative democracy, is not a system where the best candidate is crowd sourced. Its a system that forces candidates to be held accountable to the people they serve by allowing voting to keep them in place or remove them with as little friction as possible. There are ways to find “better” leaders, but what constitutes as better is subjective and often relative to who holds that leader accountable.
Applying this to things like judicial or other expert decisions, the same detrements follow. People aren’t experts in every field, and even extremely intelligent individuals wouldn’t be able to reasonably educate themselves on every topic required to make a modern country run. To fix this, we elect officials who either are the experts or who put those experts in place to make those decisions.
I think your question is about decisions via popular referendum vs. court decision, yes?
There’s merits to both.
Popular voting is true democracy. Especially with an appropriate voting system (e.g. run off voting), you can ensure that the maximum amount of people are happy or at least content with the decisions made by their organization.
However, this kind of referendum can be subject to the whims of the “masses”– in other words, minority rights can cease to exist if the minorities in question fail to appeal to the majority.
On the other hand, judicial oversight over policy has the benefit of being run, allegedly, by experts. We trust our courts to be staffed by introspective, pensive, and expert jurists, who can look beyond the surface of mass appeal, and make decisions informed by history, care for posterity, and philosophy.
The problem with judicial decisions is that judges are often beyond reproach by citizens. In the U.S. at least, most judicial appointments are non-democratic (this is my understanding, don’t quote me). This is done purposefully, so that judges can operate freely… and democratically voting in judges is subject to the same problems presented above when discussing referendums.
I think the best solution would be to have a sufficiently educated populace so that democratic referendums are voted on by educated, historically aware citizens with a concern for themselves, their neighbor, and the future.
No. If courts aren’t empowered to decide the law, then there is no law. “Will of the people” becomes “mob rule” if there’s nothing that binds public decision-making, and long-term planning becomes impossible if every decision is up to the electorate. Furthermore given the number of court disagreements happening currently, this would require daily voting.
If the legislature passed better written laws, the courts would not have near as much room for interpretation. But I believe the judiciary is a good thing to have in our democracy.
There is nothing inherent to liberalism that requires a direct democracy over a representative democracy. The vast majority of modern liberals do believe in an elected legislature that writes the laws, and a judiciary that interprets the laws. Voters cannot be expected (and don’t want) to be informed about every issue that affects the country, so we delegate that responsibility to our elected representatives.
does this sub now realize that it seems like no one reads the post, just the question?
I think the basic idea is that policy matters should be decided by democratic process, and that questions of interpretation or compliance are the proper function of the court system.
I don’t believe that is a general opinion of liberals. I think that liberals on net probably believe that the Supreme court should have less power than they do to get in the way of the democratic process, but not that there aren’t some things which should remain outside of said process.
No, I don’t. Crowdsourcing interpretations of the law sounds crazy to me. Your average person is not a lawyer and hasn’t got a clue how laws impact the country.
I don’t really understand the question as it is phrased. I believe in checks and balances, which is different both from believing in either the exact system of checks an balances described in the US constitution, and from believing in the system of checks and balances as it currently functions in the US.
As such, I think direct democracy can have a role to play but that doesn’t mean that it should have the deciding voice over and above the organized government (by that I mean executive, legislative, judicial branches).