[rayiner]

The US Supreme Court is a good example. It sits as an elite Guardian Council that over the last century has overruled the public on numerous issues, ranging from contraception to abortion to same sex marriage to the death penalty. These rulings are not based on law but rather moral philosophy—specifically the libertarian moral philosophy of elites.

Protection of minorities is not a necessary feature of democracy. It’s a feature of a specific type of democracy. In the American system, it’s a feature that initially arose because elites sought to protect their property rights from the masses through constitutional checks on democracy.

Shadi Hamid at the Brookings Institute has done excellent work distinguishing “democracy” from “liberal democracy.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/us-democra...

[wizofaus]

Are you claiming overturning abortion laws was done on the pretext of protecting foetuses (who are a minority)?

[rayiner]

Roe overturned abortion laws ostensibly to protect the minority of women who choose to have an abortion. In doing so, the justices replaced the moral philosophy of the public with their own moral philosophy.

[wizofaus]

Well if you really believe that then I assume you think they did the right thing by overturning Roe, so it seems like (in your eyes) it has a self-correcting mechanism in place. Except I gather that it's now the case that right-to-a-legal-abortion does actually have quite firm majority support from the polls that have been done? At any rate, I don't see either case as an example of the Supreme Court protecting minority factions against tyranny of the majority.