Hacker News Reader

Comment by rewind | Hacker News Reader

He's getting downvoted, but he's right. The majority voted for this, but the majority didn't get what they voted for. "The System" DID NOT work for the majority in this case (although for the record, I'm very happy with the outcome).

View on HN

I disagree wholeheartedly. The system protected the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Check out John Stuart Mill's On Liberty: http://books.google.com/books?id=ScTePJKjiTMC

"The System" dictates that states cannot deny rights protected under the Federal Constitution. I'd argue that it's working beautifully to prevent tyranny of the masses.

There's something called the Bill of Rights. It's to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's legal.

No, he's not. The court's job is not to decide based on simply majority.

Democracy does not mean "majority always gets what it wants". Another part is "protecting the rights of minority".

I would understand "the system" to include judicial review.

At one time, the majority in the US supported discriminating against people based on the color of their skin. Do you that should have been upheld also?!?

Jeez, read my comment. I'm happy it was overturned, so the answer to your question is obviously no. My comment was about a democractic system and how it doesn't always work to give the majority what they want. I never said the majority should get what they want or that they're correct when they have a majority.

Doh! (smacks self upside head). :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com