Well, that's not much different than what they do now, of course. But at least, you'd have the possibility of voting the bums out as opposed to the judiciary. You have to leave the judiciary as lifetime appointments to try to isolate them from political games as much as possible but restore the intent to make them subservient to the legislature (witness what happened with direct election of Senators, as opposed to selection by state legislatures - a twofold effect of greatly lessening the role of the states in determining federal policy as well as turning great statesmen into political hacks). Alternatively, you could just prevent them from having the power they usurped in the first place via Madison v. Marbury of deciding Constitutionality.
No. Judges would only play political games if they could run for re-election. Make it simple - one term (10 years?) then you're out of the game forever.
And ... yeah, in many MANY ways we'd be better off w/out Marbury v. Madison... but ultimately I think it's necessary (to prevent a runaway legislature)... and the historical record suggests that the framers overwhelmingly approved of judicial review...
Oh. And I don't trust the people to "vote the bums out" if the unconstitutional laws they pass are popular.