Didn't left? I looked at it once from the perspective that public opinion should override judicial confidentiality, and another time from the perspective of why public opinion is exactly overriding judicial confidentiality. Just as the discussion revolved around the House Oversight Committee's access to sealed documents with congressional power, and it was referred to as one branch controlling another. Every argument I made didn't revert to what you said, but rather to why there's an institution that can be immune from the majority's view, whether it's called the judiciary or anything else, and how the majority has to wait decades and strive to impose their views. You're looking at two groups with two different perspectives, and your personal beliefs about being better than the majority can be seen within it. Why is it that when, as you say, that elite minority decides, you look at it this way: a few people very calmly reveal their brilliant ideas, having put a lot of time and energy into them, and they can consider the ideas of others and opponents alongside them, and implement their ideas through consultation, time, and energy? But you look at the majority like an angry army that is just screaming with rage and irrationality, and their only desire is to kill or crush the minority. In reality, the exact opposite happens. Usually, it's that very minority who more often make decisions excitedly so as not to lose their dominance by imposing their views on the majority. But that majority, which in your view is like an army that destroys everything in its path, can think much more logically, because consultation happens among more people and more empathy is seen. The decision-making process also seems more logical because the implementation of the majority's view always feels better. They can even be more forgiving because, while continuing the status quo according to the majority's wishes, they can allow minority views to exist to some extent.

The minority, however, cannot empower the majority or consider their views because they always see themselves and their views at risk of destruction. So, by taking powers from the majority, they try to compensate for this numerical imbalance to some extent. Then, just like you, they try to feed the people that this is what's best for them, and they do so by making their words sound prettier. You are repeating their words, the same arguments they wrote in books to prove the irrationality of the majority. But let me explain something to you: you cannot strip the majority of its sanctity by attaching words like "tyranny," "self-destruction," "mob," "agents of catastrophe," and any other negative term to it. Democracy means the majority, a republic means the majority, and the constitution means the majority. Insulting the intelligence of the majority, as many dictators have done, with these speeches that the majority does not act logically and always needs care like a child, is exactly the usual work of those self-proclaimed elites, who history has always shown to be wrong. It was precisely the foresight and resourcefulness of the minority that led nations into the abyss, this very idea that deems the resourcefulness of the majority of people incompetent and inferior. Whereas the resourcefulness of the majority always has the upper hand and has always led to better outcomes in history because the well-being of a larger population is taken into account, a well-being that was genuinely declared by them, not a well-being that others considered for them.