On Deferring to Majorities

I was asked, "would you really feel more comfortable with Hillary selecting the next 2 or 3 justices?"

Maybe.  I am considering.

For the last 100 years there has been a dominant question Judges base judgement on. A question that many are unaware is even asked.

Is this legislation the will of the people. If it is, then by default it is good by in large. We should generally defer to the majority of the legislative branch. Those who oppose this deference are called judicial activists.

In the last 120 year or so our government has gotten further from being a republic and closer to being a direct democracy. Propositions, recalls and referendums are a part of the Arizona constitution. It was approved in 1912. The earlier states do not have such provisions in them.

I believe that there must be a balance between democratic and republican tendencies in our systems. The people can rule like a Mob just as easily as an elected official can over reach in their power.

Separation of powers includes separating the people from exercising too much power. When they do, it is the minorities in race, religion, nationality etc that suffer.

I do not trust Trump much to nominate judges that focus more on individual liberty over deferring to majorities.

John Roberts deferred to the majority of Congress and the President when he upheld Obamacare. We need more judges to balance the power more towards our God given liberties.

In short I see judge nominations as Russian roulette. With Hillary there may be 6 chambers filled. With Trump, maybe 3, maybe 5?

The damage Trump may do is to build walls of tariffs and further aggravate our economy. Then the people may conclude that capitalism does not work when in reality, tariffs are the opposite from a market economy.

So I am considering.