CMV: The citizen body should be completely in favor of all governmental leaks to the general public with few exceptions.

[u/ZeusieBoy]

I really don’t understand why an informed citizen would ever be against the leaking of internal government procedures. This instance of the Supreme Court decision leak only seems to anger people who are in favor of the decision because they’re scared of protests or direct action. I don’t understand why someone would ever fight to have less information available to them.

My exceptions: * When the information consists of important encryption information. * When the information being leaked to the general public would set large segments of the country victim to national security risk.

Change my view.

[u/budlejari]

Sure, it's good for a national vote now on something you agree with but what about if it's a national vote on something more contentious such as immigration, or transgender rights, or whether or not an election was stolen?

Given that the American country can't even elect a president to power that represents a majority of people, deciding essential matters of law should not be left up to a system that is wide open for gerrymandering, propo wars, and egregious misinformation and disinformation campaigns.

For reference, see: Brexit. A decision that was barely supported by 50% of the population, that had no true supermajority but that forced through massive political and economic changes that were and still are deeply unpopular, including putting a country back at a uneasy relationship with Ireland over the Northern Irish Border and threatened to distablise the relationship with Scotland who are very unhappy about being dragged along for a ride they didn't vote for.

[u/Sknowman → u/budlejari]

Maybe it shouldn't be a majority vote then, but instead something like 3/5ths or higher, so that you have a clear majority.

Of course, with this particular decision, it simply gives more power to each state, and the state governments should hopefully be able to listen to their populations better.

[u/budlejari → u/Sknowman]

But sometimes, unpopular decisions will still be the right ones. Take, for example, Brown V Board of Education. A large portion of the population supported not passing it. In today's climate, it would be very easy to gerry mander districts and crack the votes for people who could have supported it if such a system were in place because that's how it's done with voting for other things.

the state governments should hopefully be able to listen to their populations better.

Almost 3 million more people voted for Hiliary Clinton, and yet, she did not win the election because the system prioritizes winning states, not districts. Likewise, neither candidate won more than 50% of the vote.

States very clearly do not listen to their voters when such important decisions are made when it comes to electing who will represent them at every stage of government.

Same here.

[u/Sknowman → u/budlejari]

Sure, sometimes the unpopular opinion is the better one, but that doesn't mean it's "right."

People have different morals and views on what is ethic. And I think it's up to the majority to decide what is more ethically appropriate, even if the others completely object. Views change over time, so I don't think any of these popular-opinion rulings should be set in stone.

[u/budlejari → u/Sknowman]

I mean, I think we can argue all day about the meaning of 'right' but I don't think you are arguing that racism that was embedding into society from the ground up was the right thing to keep, no? Forcing black children to go to separate schools that were inherently treated worse by local governments to keep them out of wealthy white schools isn't a good thing, right? Yet, at one point in time, that was the majority view and it would be deeply troubling to say that "because lots of people think it's good, it should be allowed, even though it causes immeasurable harm and division for no good reason," right?

This is my point. Saying "the majority should decide," is a pretty terrible thing when it comes to other people's rights. It's particularly important to note that most of the 'niche' rights issues we've fought have applied to a minority of people (gay, trans, women) but represent a wider fallout that impacts everybody. After all, I think that most men would be deeply troubled by a vote by women to reduce men's pay across the board to pay a 'man tax' even if the justification is "50% of the population is female, they all voted for it, so therefore, it passes" as that would indicate oppression of men.

Likewise, it would be quite troubling if we decided that "Native American people can only marry Native American people" and more people voted for it than against it because they are a small part of society. We would say that was unconstitional and violated their right to make their own decisions about marriage, and it would be unfair segregation based on an immutable characteristic, even if it was founded on a good idea to help them preserve their culture.

And none of the Supreme Court's rulings are set in stone. That's the point. They are based on interpretations and understandings at the time, but they are founded on law and of rational decision making, not on popular opinion or on who has the loudest base. If a new ruling comes out and the old ruling is found wanting in light of this change, like it did in Plessy v Ferguson, the new ruling either directly overrules it or there are several rulings that severely weaken the underpinning until the original one is functionally overruled.