Now if a major networks wanted to make a huge contribution to the public good AND have a popular new TV show, they’d have a reality TV / game show with politicians. You’d have a politician answer a question, have a group of normal everyday citizens “grade” the answer on its sincerity and truthfulness, then show the truth about the politician based on his or her own record. After a series of rounds the show would then rank a politician against his or her peers as either an upstanding honest American, or as devious liar!

I think the best way to do that and keep them non-political (interested in the law not the mob politics of the day) is to make them accountable to the separate State Justice systems which by in large have the same political power interest as State employees as the federal judges have as Federal employees.

I think the only way we can hope to maintain balance and thus a fair and free Constitution is by setting apposing interest against each other. But the ultimate preference should be given to the States because if all else fails the more local the government the more representative it is of the will of the people, and the easier it is to deal with when it goes south. (We can move, AND have a vote many times more powerful).

Liberty is maintained only thou competition not monopoly, the Federal court find itself alone, the final judge, of the meaning of the law, this is not only untenable given the nature of their own position in a federal system but it is unbalanced. Repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments, but also create a new system by which the Supreme courts of the several states may by majority overrule the dictates of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the interpretations of the powers they ceded to the federal government.

I think the best way to do that and keep them non-political (interested in the law not the mob politics of the day) is to make them accountable to the separate State Justice systems which by in large have the same political power interest as State employees as the federal judges have as Federal employees.

I think the only way we can hope to maintain balance and thus a fair and free Constitution is by setting apposing interest against each other. But the ultimate preference should be given to the States because if all else fails the more local the government the more representative it is of the will of the people, and the easier it is to deal with when it goes south. (We can move, AND have a vote many times more powerful).

Liberty is maintained thou competition not monopoly, the Federal court find itself alone, the final judge, of the meaning of the law, this is not only untenable given the nature of their own position in a federal system but it is unbalanced. Repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments, but also create a new system by which the Supreme courts of the several states may by majority overrule the dictates of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the interpretations of the powers they ceded to the federal government.

But seriously. There are a couple remedies to our problem of judical activism. One would be an amendment allowing appeals or writs of certiorari to the Senate from U.S. (not State) Courts. This is the system in England and it works well. When their high court recently ignored established law and precident by allowing the arrest and extradition of foreign emassaries with political immunity to answer charges in foreign countries (Pinochet), the House of Lords took the case on appeal and reversed. By allowing the Senate to be the court of last resort, would allow the people’s elected representatives to weigh-in in extraordinary cases, hopefully to correct judical activism (but with no guarantee).

Another remedy that might be employed in place of or in addition to the above, is to have an Amendment that makes “original intent” the only enforceable interpretative principle of federal law and the Constitution. This would immediately undo 100 yeras of bad case law under the 14th Amendment and Commerce Clause. An amemdment like this might also give power to the States to nullify any decision its legislature finds, after hearing and evidence, to depart from the original intent of the Constitution as a futher inducement for the federal judiciary to adher to the letter and intent of the law, rather than re-writing it whenever it suits thier fancy.

We must preserve the “independents” of the judiciary, while forcing them to acknowledge and enforce the limits of federal power. Preferentially in favor of the people and states from which that power was ceded in the first place.

I think the only logical way to do that is to make the Federal judiciary somehow substitutable to the justices of the several States on federal constitutional matters.

There must be some sort of State appointed justice interest with the inherit interest of protecting their own state power able to challenge and overrule the federal courts, in balance.
That way there can be a balance between the 2 with regard to the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.