Utter nonsense. It’s even more nonsensical when you remember that I’m referring to the “democratic spirit” and not some purported necessary element to “democracy.”
“Democracy” and “representative democracy” are (1) both elements of human language, which means that neither has a single, exclusive meaning that can be reduced to practice in a single, unambiguous manner (2) both broad concepts about government, again, not something that has a single unambiguous application.
“Democratic spirit” is just as relevant to a purported “representative democracy” as it is to “democracy.”
No, that person temporarily holds certain, very limited powers that are to be exercised in the public interest and whose exercise subjects that person to the whim of the people. The people as a whole hold a much higher power, the power to vote the individual out of office.
I’m a Doper who has - tactfully, I hope - noted in past threads that John Roberts’s title is, in fact, “Chief Justice of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. 1. His duties go beyond presiding over the Supreme Court, and “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court” is actually not an “accurate and correct description of the job.” The title changed with Salmon P. Chase, an Ohioan appointed in 1864 by President Lincoln. Chase wanted to emphasize the judiciary’s role as a coequal branch of the Federal government, and if his ego got a little burnishing along the way, that suited him just fine. Congress went along with him, changing the law.
We Dopers are supposed to fight ignorance, I thought. What’s the harm in correcting a minor inaccuracy when we see it?
Citing to a provision of the law that his official title is “X” does not refute my claim that “Y” is a reasonably accurate manner in which to refer to him.
And my point is that in the vast majority of instances in which people are referring to the chief justice, they are doing so with reference to his presiding over the court.
The U.S. Supreme Court is presided over by nine justices. They hear cases and issue decisions on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court. One of them is designated as “chief.” Thus, it is entirely accurate to describe his job as being “chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Citing to the history of the development of official title “X” does not refute my claim that “Y” is a reasonably accurate manner in which to refer to him.