It's the law that matters, as written. The Framers created a supreme national judiciary, unaccountable, whose opinions carry the same weight as Constitutional text, and from whom there is no appeal.If we lived in a glass bubble your statement would hold water, but it doesn't. There is no appeal and for good reason. According to your magical statement the appeals process would extend out indefinitely and nothing would ever get done. Round and round we would go. Someone has to have the final say. How is this supposed to work exactly according to your magic bean theory of better government? They are accountable. As mentioned in this very statement:
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.But Congress always fails to act as it would not be in their best interest. It's not that the Constitution is "useless". It's the fact that corruption has been and always will be a major issue for every government. If anything the framers were extremely intelligent for introducing the Sholes Model (think QWERTY) into the process of checks and balances. This has kept the corruption at bay, for the most part.
The framers did this because they believed--laughably--that the supreme court was to be the most reliable protector and guardian of individual rights and Constitutional law. Yeah, I know, it's a gut-buster. I think there's a good belly laugh in every paragraph of Hamilton's Federalist 78, on this very subject.
I think you are quite wrong to suggest that good behavior was understood to mean that any time a judge decided unpopularly--rightly or wrongly so---that he could be impeached. Unless you could prove that a decision was based upon a bribe or some other tangible form of corruption, you'd be claiming a right to impeach for poor judgement. That's not what it means. You will protest that you don't mean to say impeach a judge when a decision is unpopular. But impeachment is a political act, performed by elected bodies. You think they would impeach based upon a popular decision?
Under your scheme, every decision of the court becomes a political question--precisely what the framers sought to avoid. No decision would be safe until tested in the House. Which judges would be impeached? What judge would write a controversial opinion? Would Scalia have been impeached by a Democrat house? Thomas?
The framers wanted a judiciary that was free from the whims of the democratic branches. And in a way, they got it. Sitting judges needn't fear the other branches. They bring enough political baggage on their own.
My point, which is irrefutable, is that the SCOTUS has been anything BUT what the framers' thought it would be. 200 years of data is enough for me. Article 3, especially when combined with the flabby language and implied powers found elsewhere in the Constitution, is a fatal flaw. It will simply NEVER do what we want it do until it is fixed.
The 10th amendment should be scrapped, and replaced with the earlier version that failed to pass--the one that said those powers not EXPRESSLY DELEGATED to the US belonged to the states or the people.
The necessary and proper clause should be stricken.
The words "general welfare" should be removed. In fact, the entire preamble should be lined-out.
Obviously, the commerce clause has to go too.
Constitutional review should be totally re-worked.
Most of the Bill of Rights could be improved. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments in particular could be clarified and simplified in a way that would render them more stable.
I mean, when you look at it honestly, the Constitution is a bloody mess. Full of errors, large and small.