So, you want the people to interpret the law through the judges they elect?
No, thank you.
Consider the position of the Executive; he’s the enforcement officer (”shall take good care that the laws be faithfully executed”) of our government. It makes good sense that he nominate the judges that will make him look in that constitutional duty, as well as his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.”
The public knows little about our true system of government. Handing them the keys to our judicial appointments is like giving a drunk 14 year-0ld the keys to a fully gassed Shelby Mustang on a day that the cops are on strike.
The problem his is not with the design of the system. The problem is the mutation caused by the 17th Amendment, which made the Senate a party favor of the liberals. NO good judge can get through their maze; we almost lost Clarence Thomas to their pathetic histrionics which had nothing to do with constitutional measurements.
The founders warned us of governments of the popular form. George Washington warned us of the dangers of party spirit. Your idea for the election of judges finds a home within both of these dangers.
As Madison said,
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Letting the President appoint judges has not obliged the government to control itself. Certainly not the Executive Branch. I agree that popularly electing judges has it’s downsides. However I’m not sure the negatives outweigh the positives. It shouldn’t be rejected without consideration. We can trust the American people to get it right, eventually. For instance, I’d like a good public debate on what are and are not natural rights.
Certainly there are some sources that have examined what happens to states when they have popularly elected judges. The founders had eleven years of experience with thirteen constitutions. I think we have had more experience electing judges.
In today’s environment it would be FAR better to elect them IMHO.
See post 32 this thread.
I will cite a modern example to support my position.
Robert Bork, the finest legal mind to come along in quite some time, would be sitting on the USSC right now but for the PURELY political circus surrounding his nomination.