It allows a bunch of semi-educated geezers, decades out of touch with reality, to set themselves up as a Superlegislature, imposing their will on the masses with the insouciance, eccentricity and downright vanity of the Greek gods. The O'Connors and Bremers of the world no more care about the impact of their decisions than Zeus ever did about where he threw a few thunderbolts.

We are just mortals, meant to worship and serve them all our lives.

It is long past time for that to change and we should have term limits and direct election of the Federal judiciary.

In 1756, the British Admiralty sent Admiral John Byng to prevent the French from taking Minorca. Byng arrived when the island was already under siege, and, after an indecisive naval engagement, withdrew without relieving the siege. Byng was court-martialed and hanged for "failure to do his utmost." This brought charges that he had been used as a scapegoat for ministerial failure. On his tombstone it says "bravery and loyalty were insufficient securities for the life and honour of a naval officer."

French author Francois Marie Arouet (1694 - 1778, "Voltaire") had his fictional character Candide witness such a hanging in the eponymous novel and remark:

"Dans ce pay-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres."
"In this country it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, to encourage the others."

Insulated from the pressures of the uneducated rabble. What the NYT says however...

Back when most didn't live so long, it was OK.

But sit on the bench at 40, you could be there to 100 or more.

Nope, one of the secrets of our country is turnover.

That is eurostasis.

OJ:

If the GOP gets to 60 in the Senate, can the Democrats do anything to stop them?

It doesn't look like they've been terribly productive in stopping other GOP initiatives the last few years.

Some lefties have a theory, which I quite like, that one of the purposes of the new class-action reform is to flood the federal courts with new cases, requiring the appointment of lots of new federal judges.

Matt:

You'd have to amend the Constitution to change judges' term of service.

I think all federal judges should serve a term of ten years. When their term is up, they should have to once again go before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where after a careful review of their tenure, the Committee would then decide whether to reapprove a judge for another ten years.

OJ:

Oh, of course. Duh. (slaps forehead)

I've always found it curious that the founding fathers instituted short limits on the reign of presidents, congressmen, and senators before they had to be reconfirmed by the people, but judges were somehow exempt.

jd:

Why? the point was to insulate them from democracy.

And it was a stupid point.

Bart:

It works.

OJ,

ARE YOU ON DRUGS??????????????????????

The Federal judiciary is a complete and utter disaster area. How many areas of our lives are impacted because the Supreme Court and its two-bit road-show versions in States from Massachusetts to Hawaii interfere in areas they have no business interfering.

Prayer in schools, abortion on demand, Pledge of Allegiance cases, state and local redistricting, the use of foreign law, the list never ends. The Federal judiciary is a rogue elephant interfering in a million areas where it has no business and displaying an utter cluelessness when it does and it should be subject to the same discipline as elected officials are.

This is 2005 and we are adults now. It is time for the star chambers to go back to the dust bin of history.

If we had an elected judiciary would anyone of the current crop of losers, jerks, egomaniacs and sleazeballs be there with the possible exception of Clarence Thomas?

Bart:

Yes, when Americans mistakenly gave Democrats power for seventy years we got some bad antyi-democratic decisions. Now we'll head back the other way. The pendulum goes up, but it comes back down.

The notion that we, or you in particular, are more mature than our forebears is just silly. Indeed, we needd our most anti-democratic institution all the more because we've democratized so much else.

This may come as news to you, but the Constitution was written by men on parchment in Philadelphia not by the Lord on stone tablets at Mt. Sinai. It was not a perfect document and its writers were smart enough to realize that. It can be amended to reflect the current reality of a rogue judiciary and we should do so.

To say they intended everything to remain static as it was in 1787 is a crock and you know it.

Judges gave us crappy decisions in the 19th century, Marbury, Plessy, McArdle and Dred Scott come to mind. Judges gave us crappy decisions prior to FDR, pretty much every attempt to strike down New Deal legislation was wrong. Legislatures legislate, not judges. And since FDR, simply because we've gotten into the habit of litigating everything, the sheer volume of crappy decisions has increased.

We have 200 years of history which enables us to understand the democratic process far better than the Founding Fathers. We should use it.

Bart:

Yes it does allow that. Notice we aren't changing it? Lifetime appointments has worked quite well.

The political class hands out lifetime judgeships as a reward for services rendered, like campaign contributions, political prosecutions, being a K Street bagman, etc., and you expect them to change the system without a nuclear-level push? If Beltway Establishment figures like Ornstein are talking about it, it must be on the blogosphere and in the world of opinion journals on some level. Most right wing activists would certainly support it.

A US Supreme Court decision mandating states to allow gay marriage because Canada does, might just tip the balance. A Court with lots of Bush appointees wouldn't make such a decision, but if the Hildebeest gets to make 3 or 4, then all bets are off.

No they wouldn't.