> As the states have discovered, though, judges are people with political ideas themselves and the law is not always clear. Not only that, but the power of judicial review is tremendous. In a government full of checks and balances, the only effective check to overturn a Supreme Court ruling is to amend the Constitution -- something only slightly more likely to occur than a judicial impeachment.
>

I think it's supposed to be that hard to overturn a Supreme Court ruling. The Constitution is there to protect people from the government, and not the other way around. That's also why the Constitution is so hard to amend.

And it's only that hard to "legislate around" a court ruling when the basis for the ruling is Constitutional. Most USSC rulings probably aren't, so they can be worked around with simple legislation.

> Not only that, but the federal judiciary is unelected. In a democracy[1], giving such tremendous power to a group of people who never stand before the voters seems contrary to the basic principle of representative government. The courts are inherently political, they routinely make political decisions, and there's no way to stop it. Should they be so insulated from the public?
>

The Courts aren't really a part of "representative government". They're supposed to be guardians of the Constitution (at least in Canada). That makes them defenders of the rights of the minority, a position inherently opposed to a democratic government. While it's true that judges are human, I'm not sure we have much of an alternative. Insulating judges from elections and popular approval helps to de-politicize their job. At the same time, we value their life experiences and acquired common sense as useful tools in their arsenal.

> [1] Blah blah blah the United States is a republic not a democracy, you're very smart, now shut up.
>

I thought it was both.

> What this all really comes down to is a matter of independence vs. accountability. The more independent of partisan bias judges tend to be, the less accountable to the public will they are. My open question is this: how should we get our judges? How do we balance independence and accountability? Which value is more important?
>

In case you were wondering, all judges in Canada are government-appointed, mostly by the Feds (via independent committee or some such thing), and tenured until the age of 75. Our record of judge selection is pretty good, which makes up for a lot of the "political" concerns. Also, they tend not to rise through the ranks until they've proven themselves, so even the Courts themselves have a layer of review that you can trust. If a judge makes a ridiculous decision, your remedy is an appeal, not getting the judge fired.

I'm a firm believer that judges should have no accountability except for blatant misconduct directly related to their jobs. I also think that anybody you can't trust with that kind of responsibility shouldn't be named to the bench in the first place. We should balance independence with integrity, not accountability.

^v^:)^v^
F"okay, so law school didn't completely cure my idealism"B