democracy, being a People government, depends on its leaders.

If democracy is as good as its People, then democracy depends on the People elected to positions of leadership. Actually even those leaders who are elected depend on the Bottom of Triadic government or on the People who elected them. Of course, this is obvious. The question becomes, how do the People control the leaders who govern them. Of course, we know that answer also. In the Executive Branch we lose control for a period of Four years; maybe for Eight years. Likewise, in the Legislative Branch. Some State Judicial posts are also dependent on elections within a certain time frame. The big issue that arises when one contemplates the need for constant 'democratic' activity is that most 'leaders' cannot be replaced, if necessary, until the subsequent election year. Although we have to live with wrong decisions in the selection of leaders, at least we know they can be replaced the next election year. But, how about the Federal Judiciary? They are appointed for life. Also, the person appointing them is a member of a political Party, hence Party ideology kicks in, and hence, we have Party-decisions coming from the Supreme Court that are 'tempered' for a 'long range purpose'. Consider the Supreme Court decision that first held that corporations are 'persons' and the more recent decision in Citizens that extended their fictitious nature into a Constitutional right that includes 'a freedom of speech', which translates into more money for politicians, when everyone knows that they don't even speak. How can the people keep some degree of control over obvious Judicial behavior that is not based on a democratic value system? At first it was thought that Federal Judges needed to be sequestered for a lifetime to stabilize the constant democratic ideology that should emanate from the Court. What happened? Simple! They divided into Parties. Now, the Supreme Court is at 'war' with itself. Do they have coffee together, or is that also a Party function?