We can see this in the Democrats refusing to accept the results of the 2016 election.

It's very clear that Democrats -- the politicians, not all the people who vote for them -- hate democracy. Democrats don't believe that power is from the people; rather Democrats believe that the elites, which in the minds of Democrats is made up solely of Democrats, should rule the rest of us.

We can see it in the Democrats enthusiasm for the administrative state where unelected, unaccountable, unfireable bureaucrats can create thousands of pages of rules and regulations which average Americans have to follow.

But we see it most clearly in the panic that Democrats are experiencing over the idea that Trump will be nominating someone to the Supreme Court who will decide cases based on what the law says rather than what they think the law should say.

The New York Times editors wrote the following:

This call to arms may sound overly dramatic. It’s not. As hyperpartisanship, gridlock and a general abdication of responsibility have rendered Congress increasingly dysfunctional, the judiciary is taking an ever-greater hand in policy areas ranging from immigration to guns to ballot access to worker rights.

This is a clear indisputable example of the elite Democrat establishment, of which the NYT is a card-carrying member, saying that the Supreme Court should be making policy rather than simply deciding what the laws passed by Congress or the Constitution say.

Essentially the Democrats who run the NYT are saying that because Congress won’t do what they want it to do -- that’s what they mean by "gridlock" -- a group of five rich white lawyers on the Supreme Court should take over the job of running the country.

This is nothing less than a call for revolution and a demand that America become a banana republic ruled not by the people but by a few rich lawyers.

While this openness about their beliefs is new for Democrats, they’ve been espousing their desire to turn America into an authoritarian state for decades.

Not a single significant Democrat initiative has been passed by Congress.

For example, legalizing pornography, coddling criminals, declaring abortion to be a fundamental right, redefining libel/slander, and redefining marriage have all been the result of the Supreme Court defining policy, not interpreting the Constitution and the law.

In most cases the Court went directly against the expressed will of the people and imposed laws on Americans that were only supported by the tiny elite who run the Democratic party.

The Court’s declaration that there was an unassailable right to kill one’s unborn child went directly against what the people of America had stated. Even in the most liberal states, abortion was only legal for what would now be considered the hard cases. There was clearly no mandate for abortion for any reason at any time during pregnancy. Yet the Court imposed unrestricted abortion on the people.

55,000,000 Americans had voted against redefining marriage -- even uberliberal California resoundingly passed Prop 8, which declared that marriage was between a man and a woman, but the Supreme Court decided that the people didn’t know what was best for them and imposed what Democrats wanted on the people.

But wait, you say, what about ObamaCare? While ObamaCare was passed by Congress, it was passed because it contained no new taxes. Democrats, led by Obama, told everyone who would listen that ObamaCare contained no new taxes. It’s unlikely that even with the Democrats controlling everything, they could have gotten sufficient votes if they’d have said that they were voting for a massive tax increase.

Hence, when ObamaCare went to the Supreme Court, it should have been rejected, because in their ruling saying that the act was Constitutional, the justices asserted that Congress imposing fees on people who didn’t do what Congress wanted them to do is unconstitutional.

But instead of following what the law said and what all its supporters said when it was being debated, the Court decided to effectively rewrite the law, take a bigger role in defining policy, to use the NYT’s terminology, and change fees to taxes.

Precisely because it was clear that the American people did not support ObamaCare, the Supreme Court decided to ignore the Constitution’s definition of who has the power to make laws, i.e. the Congress, and create a law via judicial fiat.

Democrats knew what was best for America, and while the people didn’t agree with the Democrats, five Supreme Court judges did and that’s all that the Democrats cared about.

Because Democrats have used the Court to impose their will on the people, they know that if the Court returns to its constitutional role as an impartial interpreter of the Constitution, the entire Democrat edifice -- ranging from ObamaCare to redefining marriage -- is at risk of tumbling down.

Of course, the Democrats really never had a choice; their policies are toxic and rejected by most people so that they could never have been passed through the democratic process.

But their winning run is about to end, and they’re furious because they know that they are better, more caring, and smarter than the rest of us. In their minds, denying them tyrannical powers is an affront to nature, and they’ve long since given up on the idea that there is a God who gives us unalienable rights.

That’s why they accept violence and incivility against people who simply stand for the Constitution; because Democrats can’t convince Americans they have to coerce them.

When you talk to your friends about Trump nominee, remind them that the judge’s philosophy is that their role will be to decide, to the best of their ability, what the Constitution says and what the people who wrote it meant it to say -- that they view their role as being an impartial referee, not a tyrant who imposes their own personal views on the people.

Remind them that if Roe v. Wade is repealed, it means that each state will be able to define when abortion is legal, not that all abortions everywhere will be illegal.

Ask them if they want the rules we Americans live by to be defined by the people, through our elected representatives, or by a few 1%ers on the Supreme Court.

The NYT is correct in saying that the Supreme Court is the issue, but they refuse to admit that this will be the case only so long as the majority believe in legislating from the bench. Once Trump’s new nominee is on the Court, it will cease being the issue in all our elections because the Court will stop legislating and return to simply interpreting the laws passed by our representatives.

Nothing else Trump will do is more important than returning the Court to its proper role and returning power to we the people.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.