I only got to read the snippet, but I agree: the point is not the decision itself as much as HOW the decision is made.
I have to read Mark Levin's book, Men In Black, about the judiciary. He's really great on his WABC radio show also. He has suggested term limits for judges, but that seems to almost codify rather than fight the trend of judges actiung as "super-legislatures." He has also suggested limiting the jurisdiction of judges (already "Constitutional," since it is the congress which CREATES the lower courts and the jurisdiction in the first place, ass I understand it), or an amendment allowing a Supreme Court decision to be overturned by a two-thirds majority of each house. I like these better, since it seems they would somehow preserve the "moral authority" (to the extent it's there) of the Court rather than making them just another legislature, like they are now. I guess the point is to do SOMETHING.
ass = as
Sorry, I made an "as" of myself by not proofreading - spell check does not work if the typo is also a word!