*** Congratulations Democrats ***

[Terraceth]

I'd be interested in an example of the House or the Senate representing the constituents.
The majority of people in this country were against abortion, we got abortion.

Were they? A quick search doesn't show any polls prior to Roe v. Wade but in 1975 (several years later), 54% of the country was in favor of it being legal under certain circumstances, with the rest fairly even split between "always legal" and "always illegal." source (you'll have to scroll down a bit to get to abortion). Now it's of course hard to evaluate exactly what this means because "legal only under certain circumstances" is a pretty nebulous term, but the information it did seem rather split down the middle to the point I'm not sure there was necessarily a big majority on either side.

The majority of people in this country were against gay marriage, we got gay marriage.

Actually, based on Gallup polls, starting in 2012 there were more people in favor of it than people against it. Source.

The majority of people in this country were against Obama care, we got Obama care.

Obamacare was passed in 2009. At the time, the majority of Americans felt it was the responsibility of the federal government to ensure healthcare for everyone. Now, it may be that this didn't translate into that level of support for the ACA (being in favor of the government handling doesn't mean they liked that particular implementation), but the issue itself clearly, at least at the time, had people be in favor of the general idea.

The majority of people in this country are against illegal immigration but it will continue anyways.

Naturally, because it's impossible to completely stop illegal immigration, or crimes in general. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

I'm not suggesting that the majority makes an issue correct nor am I arguing for or against any one of those topics.
I'm just illustrating that the House and the Senate are most certainly NOT about representing the people.

The first two were settled by the courts, not the House and Senate. Besides that, #2 and #3 were representative of the majority's opinion at the time, #1 seems to have been close, and I'm perplexed by what you mean by #4.

Now, someone might argue that the polls I cited could be wrong, and that's fair, but in that case they'd have to provide their own support for the claim that the majority believed something.

[JimL]

Why are you blaming the Tea Party? They have nothing to do with this. It's establishment Republicans who are the problem.

And to the establishment republicans it's the tea party, aka the freedom caucus, who are the problem. Either way you look at it, the fault, as usual, lies with the republican party.

[Meh Gerbil]

Were they? A quick search doesn't show any polls prior to Roe v. Wade but in 1975 (several years later), 54% of the country was in favor of it being legal under certain circumstances, with the rest fairly even split between "always legal" and "always illegal." source (you'll have to scroll down a bit to get to abortion). Now it's of course hard to evaluate exactly what this means because "legal only under certain circumstances" is a pretty nebulous term, but the information it did seem rather split down the middle to the point I'm not sure there was necessarily a big majority on either side.

My Claim: Abortion implemented against will of majority.
The Reality: Abortion on demand implemented against vast majority of people.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

I was too vague in my initial claim and should have specified that even I believe under certain circumstances abortion should be allowed.
The point is that today about 80% believe abortion on demand is wrong yet we have abortion on demand.
That is contrary to the will of the people - which is the point I was trying to make.

Actually, based on Gallup polls, starting in 2012 there were more people in favor of it than people against it. Source.

My Claim: Gay marriage was implemented against the will of the people.
The Reality: Gay marriage was implemented against the will of the people, but not nation wide until 2015, at which point it was a majority opinion.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/Marriage.aspx

The majority was against gay marriage until 2011 but by that time it had already become a reality in several states.
In those states that passed laws to restrict the practice, the will of the people was steamrolled by the Supreme Court in 2015.
Using the 2015 Supreme Court date as the official polling data point is not entirely an honest picture of what happened - by then it had already been forced on the nation.

Obamacare was passed in 2009. At the time, the majority of Americans felt it was the responsibility of the federal government to ensure healthcare for everyone. Now, it may be that this didn't translate into that level of support for the ACA (being in favor of the government handling doesn't mean they liked that particular implementation), but the issue itself clearly, at least at the time, had people be in favor of the general idea.

My claim: Affordable Care Act implemented against will of majority.
Reality: Affordable Care Act only recently gained majority approval 5 years after implementation.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/207671/af...irst-time.aspx

As for your comments about issues being settled by the courts I have utterly no respect for their illegal activities.
Circumventing the rule of law is wrong even when a cross dresser in a muumuu does it.

That all written, hats off to you for actually looking up these figures.

[Terraceth]

My Claim: Gay marriage was implemented against the will of the people.
The Reality: Gay marriage was implemented against the will of the people, but not nation wide until 2015, at which point it was a majority opinion.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/Marriage.aspx

The majority was against gay marriage until 2011 but by that time it had already become a reality in several states.
In those states that passed laws to restrict the practice, the will of the people was steamrolled by the Supreme Court in 2015.
Using the 2015 Supreme Court date as the official polling data point is not entirely an honest picture of what happened - by then it had already been forced on the nation.

The problem is that you are comparing the national majority versus a state's policies. It would only be going against the majority if in a specific state where it was enacted the majority of that state was against it at the time. Is there proof of this?

My claim: Affordable Care Act implemented against will of majority.
Reality: Affordable Care Act only recently gained majority approval 5 years after implementation.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/207671/af...irst-time.aspx

The article states "This is the first time a majority of Americans have approved of the healthcare law, also known as Obamacare, since Gallup first asked about it in this format in November 2012." It doesn't say anything at all about what people thought at the time of implementation because it doesn't have data for that time period. That said, here is a poll from just after it was implemented that shows the majority disapproving.

Although, I'm not sure if it's even possible to make a healthcare bill that would garner actual majority approval at the time of implementation (later on, people might be more willing to shrug and say "close enough" and mind the nuances less), because even if the majority of people think the government should supply healthcare, there was major splitting in regards to how they wanted the bill to go about doing it.

It's kind of like how it's actually quite legitimately impossible for Puerto Rico's relationship with the US to be approved by the majority (of either Puerto Ricans or Americans in general) because there isn't any viewpoint that describes the majority. If it stays a territory, the majority will disagree (those who favor statehood or independence together constitute the majority), if it becomes a state the majority will disagree (those who favor independence or territory together constitute the majority), and if it becomes an independent nation the majority will disagree (those who favor statehood or remaining a territory together constitute the majority).

[Meh Gerbil]

The problem is that you are comparing the national majority versus a state's policies. It would only be going against the majority if in a specific state where it was enacted the majority of that state was against it at the time. Is there proof of this?

At that juncture I'd point out that the state government was against the policy and if the people had a problem with that they could vote out the representatives that opposed gay marriage and vote in representatives who favored it. At least in Michigan we didn't get a chance to do that because the Supreme Court decided that the courts had the ability to redefine a term (marriage) and override the will of the people as expressed by their representatives.

Michigan had banned recognition of same-sex unions in any form since a 2004 popular vote added an amendment to the state constitution. Previously, a statute enacted in 1996 banned both the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s...ge_in_Michigan

^--- That same article shows that when the courts overturned the amendment (ten years later) that the popular opinion was close, going either way depending on what poll you view.

It is rather a moot point now since the original post is about how we don't get to decide anything as a people anymore.
The government has decided that they'll forge ahead regardless of what the majority wants - judges are our oligarchs, screw the people.

[Meh Gerbil]

[insert progressive drivel]

BTW, I should admit that I'm a bit surprised at the poll results as they were much closer than I had assumed.
Thanks for providing the data - I don't like being that far off in my estimations.

Ya did good.

[Terraceth]

BTW, I should admit that I'm a bit surprised at the poll results as they were much closer than I had assumed.
Thanks for providing the data - I don't like being that far off in my estimations.

Ya did good.

I'm confused. What was "progressive drivel" about my post?

[Meh Gerbil]

I'm confused. What was "progressive drivel" about my post?

If anything you type disagrees with my points it is, by definition, progressive drivel.
That is how I feel good about myself when I'm trying to sleep at night.

[rogue06]

Congress can reign in the courts.

And the courts in turn can reign in Congress. That is what the whole checks and balances thing is about. Essentially you need two of the three branches cooperating to reign in the third.

[Meh Gerbil]

And the courts in turn can reign in Congress. That is what the whole checks and balances thing is about. Essentially you need two of the three branches cooperating to reign in the third.

...and that is the problem we face, isn't it?
The conservatives in Congress are way okay with what the courts have been doing.
They've been playing the Good Representative to the Bad Judge routine on us for years.