This is not an example of judges making political rulings that some people dislike. It's an example of judges failing to follow clear-cut basic rules.

> Shortly after the ACLU filed its lawsuit, South Carolina’s chief justice sent a scolding memo to the state’s magistrates. “It has continually come to my attention that defendants, who are neither represented by counsel nor have waived counsel, are being sentenced to imprisonment,” [chief justice] Beatty wrote in the September 2017 memo. “This is a clear violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and numerous opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

All modern democracies are run by bureaucrats and unelected civil servants. At the very top levels, you have elected officials and their political appointees. Those people provide high level leadership and set priorities. However, almost all of the actual work of governance is done by the people below them: the career civil servents.

That’s the expectation, but outsourcing means modern democracy is in large part run by for profit companies. Law enforcement traffic cameras are a great example of this with layers of separation between voting and implementation. More insidious is border agents depending on outsourced software to screen people. In theory government agents are in charge, in practice it’s more nuanced.

These judges are appointed, not elected, so they’re still “bureaucrats”.

Democracy is a scheme to keep masses in check by giving them illusion of power. If a politician starts promising people to give them what they actually want it is called "populism" and said politician will become a pariah, painted as irresponsible, crazy, etc.

Rightfully so, as they won't be able to actually afford or pass what they promise without destroying some part of the economy.

Voters would think harder about what they vote for if their votes were effective instead of being ignored like children.

I can't imagine someone with such a cynical outlook being happy with direct rule by the masses.

If Democracy is the illusion of rule by the people, what is actual rule of the people?

Anything that works at the scale of up a few hundred people, or low thousands at most.

That's an awfully long name. I'll stick to "Democracy". The etymology makes more sense too.

what's your recommended alternative?

The fact that there are no alternatives to something doesn't make it good.

But it does make it best.

Also makes it a pointless exercise to question it.

The first step to solving a problem is recognising there is one. Who knows, perhaps we will come up with something that's better than democracy one day. It's good to explore alternatives.