The statement discusses a public issue related to governance and the role of experts, referencing a Supreme Court case and historical context. It appears to critique the idea of governance by 'independent' experts, suggesting a disconnect from democratic processes.
- The statement uses a critical tone, which may not directly harm but could polarize opinions. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it uses a sarcastic tone towards voters. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in critique but could be seen as dismissive rather than constructive. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement uses its platform to question governance structures, which can contribute to civic dialogue. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.