"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.
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). "
I'm not sure I agree, and there is the rub. The judiciary *needs* the right to interpret the Constitution in a way to trump laws that Congress passes, or the Constitution is a dead letter. McCain-Feingold would have *no* constraints on it, "Kelo" and Eminent Domain would run riot, etc. In fact, without Marbury, no Supreme Court would have stopped the early New Deal, and we'd be a europeanized, socialized state by now.
On the other hand, the *misuse* of that judicial power in the hands of 'living Constitution' judicial activists has killed the constitution and our democracy ...
Choose your poison. The only salvation is the concept of "judicial restraint" where the judges check themselves in their actions.