Instead of “democratically popular and democratically passed” laws how does one sign up for “republiquely popular and republiquely passed” laws? (IYKYK)
Also, at the beginning of the piece you claim “The Supreme Court is, of course, by design, an undemocratic institution.” But then by the end are positing “But it isn’t going to do that anymore, both because the Court no longer supports those outcomes and because the Supreme Court has become self-consciously less autocratic and more democratic.”
So which is it? Speaking as a lefty who has been wholly won over by the many descriptions of textualism I’ve read here at DeCiv, are we sliding closer to or farther from democracy in our Supreme Court?
When the Left talks democracy, replace the word with something similar to what you and Mike appear to mean by "republiquely."
This is the way that comparative political scientists, both in the United States and abroad, use the term "democracy." At least in my social circles, this is the commonsensical meaning of the word too. It refers to a system of government in which representatives are elected through votes, and judges and bureaucrats appointed by those leaders safeguard fundamental rights and execute policy.
American right wingers, and nobody else in my experience, seem to use democracy to mean direct democracy, or rule by simple majority, and then like to correct everyone else who refers to the United States or other modern democracies as democracies. No, we are a republic! In this, they manage to be both pedantic and wrong, like someone correcting your already proper use of their/they're/there.
A core feature of functioning democracy is its compulsion of differing interest groups to reach compromise, rather than a majority simply performing its will. American democracy has systems for this, but they don't work anymore, and arguably never did work particularly well. Look at the behavior of elected authoritarians like Orban, Erdogan, and Putin, and you'll see their breaking of such systems as a fundamental component of what political scientists (and not just lefties) are calling anti-democratic.
In this language, courts are absolutely a democratic institution, and they only cease to be so when a faction is able to install partisans in gross disproportion to their voting bloc, or who will reliably protect the rights of some over others. A 6/3 Supreme Court appointed and approved through a minority of voters meets these criteria as clearly as anything could. (And if our democracy were functioning properly, we wouldn't refer to our Justices as belonging to a side to begin with.)
There's a slippage, of course, since the further away people are from academic discourse, the more likely they might use the term in a loosey-goosey way where it sometimes refers to a democratic system of government and other times it means "I'm mad that my majority can't do anything." However, in the kinds of articles you're linking to, the authors appear to be using the word in the sense of the last century of comparative political science.
Rhetorically, the American right-wing language of "we are not a democracy" serves to numb any charges against practices that are openly inimical to representative government. Because Republicans have chosen to advance the interests of a numeric minority, they have increasingly needed to rely on electoral strategies that lead to power without having the support or approval of most citizens. Voter suppression tactics have become a core part of strategy, and American Republicans have become staunch defenders of systems that give them disproportionate representation, but which don't make sense to much anybody else on the planet. How much of this language about "confusion" regarding democracy is about justifying systems that give you disproportionate power?
Instead of “democratically popular and democratically passed” laws how does one sign up for “republiquely popular and republiquely passed” laws? (IYKYK)
Also, at the beginning of the piece you claim “The Supreme Court is, of course, by design, an undemocratic institution.” But then by the end are positing “But it isn’t going to do that anymore, both because the Court no longer supports those outcomes and because the Supreme Court has become self-consciously less autocratic and more democratic.”
So which is it? Speaking as a lefty who has been wholly won over by the many descriptions of textualism I’ve read here at DeCiv, are we sliding closer to or farther from democracy in our Supreme Court?
When the Left talks democracy, replace the word with something similar to what you and Mike appear to mean by "republiquely."
This is the way that comparative political scientists, both in the United States and abroad, use the term "democracy." At least in my social circles, this is the commonsensical meaning of the word too. It refers to a system of government in which representatives are elected through votes, and judges and bureaucrats appointed by those leaders safeguard fundamental rights and execute policy.
American right wingers, and nobody else in my experience, seem to use democracy to mean direct democracy, or rule by simple majority, and then like to correct everyone else who refers to the United States or other modern democracies as democracies. No, we are a republic! In this, they manage to be both pedantic and wrong, like someone correcting your already proper use of their/they're/there.
A core feature of functioning democracy is its compulsion of differing interest groups to reach compromise, rather than a majority simply performing its will. American democracy has systems for this, but they don't work anymore, and arguably never did work particularly well. Look at the behavior of elected authoritarians like Orban, Erdogan, and Putin, and you'll see their breaking of such systems as a fundamental component of what political scientists (and not just lefties) are calling anti-democratic.
In this language, courts are absolutely a democratic institution, and they only cease to be so when a faction is able to install partisans in gross disproportion to their voting bloc, or who will reliably protect the rights of some over others. A 6/3 Supreme Court appointed and approved through a minority of voters meets these criteria as clearly as anything could. (And if our democracy were functioning properly, we wouldn't refer to our Justices as belonging to a side to begin with.)
There's a slippage, of course, since the further away people are from academic discourse, the more likely they might use the term in a loosey-goosey way where it sometimes refers to a democratic system of government and other times it means "I'm mad that my majority can't do anything." However, in the kinds of articles you're linking to, the authors appear to be using the word in the sense of the last century of comparative political science.
Rhetorically, the American right-wing language of "we are not a democracy" serves to numb any charges against practices that are openly inimical to representative government. Because Republicans have chosen to advance the interests of a numeric minority, they have increasingly needed to rely on electoral strategies that lead to power without having the support or approval of most citizens. Voter suppression tactics have become a core part of strategy, and American Republicans have become staunch defenders of systems that give them disproportionate representation, but which don't make sense to much anybody else on the planet. How much of this language about "confusion" regarding democracy is about justifying systems that give you disproportionate power?