The primary reason why judges have come to rule America is the total degeneration of Americans' familiarity with the Constitution. In the 1850's, thousands of Americans would turn out in person to watch Lincoln and Douglas debate serious constitutional issues...in 2005, those type of debates couldn't compete with American Idol and Desperate Housewives. High schools don't teach the Constitution anymore. Law schools pretend to teach the Constitution but they only really teach law students what the Supreme Court has said the Constitution "really means"...which is usually very different than what it actually says.
You know most Americans when discussing the Constiutution will often preface their opinions by stating "Now, I'm no Constitutional scholar" (who needs to be a "scholar" to be able to read the 18 enumerated powers and know what they mean?) or "I'm no lawyer, but..." Well...I am a lawyer and I can tell you that lawyers learn no special skills that make them better able to read the relatively simple words of the Constitution and know what they mean. I've always believed that lawyers are the worst candidates for the job of judicial review because many lawyers (especially those who think they are brilliant) are incapable of reading simple words and telling you what they mean. I've always believed that, rather than lawyers, we should appoint American historians of the Constitutional Convention and philosophers learned in Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, etc. for the job of judicial review of the US Constitution. This is the real reason that some founders envisioned lawyers in the Federal Courts performing the job of judicial review...not because their legal skills allow them to uncover deep mystical meanings in the Constitution indiscernable to mere non-lawyers...but because (1), in 1787, lawyers were seen as above the commercial interests of mechanics, merchants and farmers and, thus could be more objective, and (2) lawyers, like Hamilton, were often quasi-gentry and, when not practicing law, were reading Enlightenment philosophy.
We will never end rule by judges until a large enough segment of the American population realizes that there are no hidden meanings in the Constitution discoverable only to Ivy-educated lawyers (many of whom I can assure you are not all that bright). Only when the American people come to understand that the Constitution has been abused and perverted since FDR's New Deal era to give the federal government expansive powers it does not legitimately have...only then, will the political branches, in both the state and federal governments, have the guts to stand up to the Courts and say "you cannot get away with just making things up and then pretending these things are just products of lawyerly interpretations of the Constitution.
That way they can twist it to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Maybe he was thinking of the Declaration of Independence?
the supreme court should be composed of 5 non-judicial types and 4 judicials. with non-judicials, they'd look at a case and go, "how does the constitution apply to this?" probably 90% of their cases would be thrown out. the problem is "qualified" judges look at a case where a man bites dog and sees 47 different ways to rule any direction, citing earlier cases that were just as much not-related to the constitution.
So, Bernard Bailyn for SCOTUS, then?