Democracy is predicated on maintaining a level political playing field that provides everyone an equal voice and equal opportunity to participate in decision making. Majority rule allows the majority to tilt the political playing field in their favor. Indirect decision making, where elected representatives make the decisions on behalf of their constituency, compromises somewhat on both the majority rule and democracy ideals. In many contexts decision making requires expertise and support staff and commitment of personal time that makes direct democracy unwise, if not entirely impractical. And election of representatives requires money which can further compromise the ideal. Yet this distinction between majority rule and democracy is still of fundamental importance. Under majority rule, the elected representatives from majority party A can declare its closest competitor, party B, illegal. In contrast, democratic government rejects dividing citizens into two classes, outsiders and insiders, such that the voices of the outsiders are discounted or disadvantaged. Democracy is rooted in the principle that the fairness of the process under which a majority opinion is determined takes precedence over majority opinion when the two conflict. In other words, democratic government is "limited" by an obligation to provide equal protection before the law for all citizens to prevent a "tyranny of the majority".
In the United States context, the judicial branch of government can void (completely or partially) a popular law or government activity backed by the legislature and/or executive branches because the law or government activity divides citizens into outsiders and insiders and thus exceeds the legitimate bounds of democratic government action. This is part of the "checks and balances" between the three branches of government and is essential to realizing democratic government that respects minority rights. This works well when the citizens and their elected representatives recognize and respect the judicial assertion of its prerogative to defend the equality before the law of all citizens. Unfortunately, many citizens and politicians in the U.S. today, egged on by the religious right wing, mischaracterize as "autocratic" any judicial action against the establishment of a majoritarian monotheism in defense of democratic civic equality. The U.S. government thus continues to fall short of its democratic promise and potential.