That's certainly a good point, Beet. I'm not even sure if I support it myself, I mostly wanted to throw it out there for debate more than anything. Certainly the fact that justices would have to run would make them more likely to do what the people want rather than what the "right" thing to do is, if those two conflict. But it seems that a lot of people think it's gone too far the other way, and that the courts trample over public opinion to impose their own values. Having a long term (10 years) would ensure that they are still mostly insulated from political pressure. They don't have to run very often. It's somewhat of a compromise, they still have longer terms than everyone else, but the people do also have a say as well.
Yes I think there is a case to be made for giving the people their say. After all, the Court does rule on some pretty controversial topics... and once ruled upon they're generally not overturned, despite a few high profile cases. On the other hand, its interesting to note that even though FDR lost his court packing plan, he was able to change the thrust of the Court by appointing new Justices when old ones retired. Right now the Court is decently balanced, even though 7 of the 9 Justices were appointed by Republicans, because for most of the past 30 years, American has seen divided government (President/Senate not of the same party). I agree the Court is a very "lagging" indicator. I expect a couple of Justices to step down between now and the end of 2008, so this election could determine some of the new confirms.
