Dramatic title, I know, but I think the author has a strong case. We have a government ruling without mandate, which we did not vote for. It imposed a policy which was ruled unfair by a court. So it changed the law retrospectively.
The basic idea of democracy is that if you don't like the government, you can (at widely-spaced intervals) kick them out and vote in somebody different. But in our system, there's no-one different to vote for, and the people don't get who they voted for anyway.