[BlackGriffen]

In the United States, judges review the law for constitutionality. This power was granted to the judges by a judge (first chief justice of the Supreme Courth, IIRC). Is it a mistake to give judges, people who are appointed to their positions for life, the ability to review the law? Now, somebody has to do it, that's for sure. Is the judicial system, as it stands now, good for the system as a whole? I'm thinking specifically of legislators taking extreme positions, that they themselves do not support, in order to pander to an extremist base because they know the courts will strike extreme laws down.

So, it got me thinking about how to replace the Supreme Court. Since the replacement would have the authority to interpret the constitution, the requirements for becoming one should be about as stringent as the requirements to amend the constitution. So, instead of the President proposing and the Senate signing off, have both houses of congress propose by simple majority, and then a majority of state legislatures, or governors, or by popular election, or some such ratify. To speed things up, congress could propose multiple candidates and then let the next level hash things out. There would have to be a deadline, though, or the bench would quickly empty. Life terms are one possibility, but I think that one time 10 year terms (ie no reelection) would do just as well whilst making the Supreme Court more adaptive.

I dunno, just a random thought I had. The problem I describe may all be in my head, but every time I hear people complaining about "activist judges" I have to wonder.

BlackGriffen

[UNTeMac]

I think the "activist judge" problem you refer to is more confined within the lower appeals courts. The Supreme Court, at least in its history has been pretty fair on most issues, taking constitutionality over partisanship, as they should. Given the political climate of the country and the concerted efforts of many people to shift the country to the right, we may see more partisan judges appointed.

I think the problem with even having a one-time election for a judge is that in order to get elected, he/she would have to campaign for the position. I would actually prefer an appointed position that gets approved by elected officials rather than an actual vote. It keeps the judge's mind on his/her job and not on pleasing the special interests that may have gotten them elected.