Question

Hello.
I seem to remember that you wrote about the topics below (especially regarding the nature of majority decision-making), but I didn’t know where to look for an orderly presentation.
My question is about the well-known dissonance between democratic majority rule and immoral decisions made by the majority, and then whoever would decide that a decision is immoral (would that too be decided by majority vote?) and cancel it. And then a body that supervises the supervisors, and so on in an endless loop…
Of course I’m writing in the clear context of the parliamentary-judicial situation in Israel, where the Supreme Court strikes down laws that are “immoral/disproportionate,” and it seems obvious that it itself is loaded with a left-wing agenda, while the public is more right-wing. There’s no shortage of examples, like canceling the neighbor procedure, deporting infiltrators, etc. etc. And the right is furious. And it often seems justified.
But the alternative is unclear—can the majority decide everything? Strip anyone who disagrees with the laws of the state of his property? Exile anyone who thinks there is no divine intervention in the world? 🙂 Surely not..
What is proportionality? And who defines it—the majority? And who supervises the majority if it does not act proportionately? And who supervises the supervisor if he overreaches in his intervention? And who decides whether he is overreaching or not?
Is there any way out of this seemingly unsolvable vicious circle?
I would be very happy to read your thoughts on the subject, whether they were already written or will be written.