[WillPostForFood]

Not only did Californians vote to reinstate the death penalty, they then voted to impeach the justices of the State Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, who actively blocked its use after it became law again. So I don't think there is much argument that the courts were just implementing the will of the people.

[magicalist]

> they then voted to impeach the justices of the State Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, who actively blocked its use after it became law again

nobody was impeached. It was a normal judicial retention election.

[WillPostForFood]

You are correct, it was a retention election which typically is a rubber stamp approval.

[greglindahl]

I didn't make that argument. I was arguing that the people wanted contradictory things. The courts are just caught in the middle.

[WillPostForFood]

The people didn't want contradictory things, they wanted the death penalty, and they wanted the courts to implement it. The court wasn't caught in the middle, it was just composed of judges with opinions out of alignment with the general population.

[greglindahl]

So you don't think that the people want the Constitution, or the court system?

[jacquesm]

Think of a constitution as guardrails about democracies, the constitution nails a couple of very basic rules down hard and leaves room for interpretation and variation. It's a good principle, the constitution guarantees long term stability and the 'basics', the parliaments/congresses/whatever the local variation is called deal with day-to-day variance.

So 'the people' will want both, depending on whether they have the long or the short term view and those two views can and do contradict at times.

[WillPostForFood]

People want the constitution in the way they want to interpret it, and they want judges who believe what they believe. There is no contradiction. It is naive to think of judges as some sort of objective arbiter, they are effectively political appointees sent to push an agenda.