"If you want to get me excited, propose a constitutional amendment that either limits the tenure of Federal judges or reverses Marbury vs Madison. Preferably both."
Limiting tenure won't change their stripes ...
and Marbury v Madison reversed? Never happen. Amendments are hard enough, and hte Democrats would have a good case to oppose it (do you *really* want the courts to *not* be able to overturn laws? What about recent "Kelo" decision?); 'rollback of our rights' to the umpteenth degree. the best we could hope for would be some Article III section 2 shots across the bow from Congress to limit review in some cases.
This "Freedom of Religious Expression" amendment is a good idea, it encapsulates the proper understanding of the 1st amendment, highlights the problems of which you speak, *and* would be agreed to by 80% of Americans.
Nevertheless, you are right that this addresses just one facet of the challenge from liberal judicial activism. the *real* solution is to defumigate our law schools and the courtrooms of these "living Constitution" ACLU-brow-beaten Judicial activists. Term limits can't help much because it is a matter of the *whole legal culture* being pulled over to the dark side of judicial activism. The only ones resisting are the explicit conservatives of the Federalist Society stripe.
A Scalia Court majority is our best and only hope at this point.
One more reason to support Luttig for USSC.
"Limiting tenure won't change their stripes ..."
No it won't, but it will allow you to get rid of the worst actors over time.
"Marbury v Madison reversed? Never happen. Amendments are hard enough, and the Democrats would have a good case to oppose it (do you *really* want the courts to *not* be able to overturn laws? What about recent "Kelo" decision?)"
I very much doubt that either conservatives or liberals would push for an end to Marbury v Madison. But that's really where the problem lies (as well as with the unelected nature of the Federal judiciary).
The point of contention in the political sphere is less over the proper role of the judiciary but of getting judges appointed that represent one's own political bent.
And yes, I would like to see an end the unelected judiciary's ability to overturn laws. That's a tool that's been used to achieve bad ends as often as good. If judges were elected, I'd have much less of a problem with judicial review. But Federal judges are not elected and are almost completely unaccountable for their actions.