Well, there you go. Having an elected SC works fine in Illinois and Texas. No "stealth liberals" making it past the primary here. Instead of going the route that alot of freepers want and having more govenrment control over our lives via an appointed U.S. Senate, maybe we should go the opposite route and allow more freedom via letting the people pick the SC justices. I think the voters could have done better than Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, etc. Then we'd have a good chance of getting a Republican on the court whether Obama or McCain is the next President -- and for those that don't "trust McCain" on this, it's out of his hands.
And here's the icing on the cake: based on the way the federal circuit is set up and what states each judge on the USSC "represents" (I'm ignoring the DC and at-large circuits, both represented by Roberts), Clinton appointee Steven Breyer would most likely be toast if he had to face the voters of his circuit. (Souter would probably lose too, but he ALREADY votes like a RAT so there would be no idealogical shift if he lost) The states they represent are:
KENNEDY (R)
California
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
Idaho
Arizona
Montana
Alaska
Hawaii
BREYER (D)
Utah
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Kansas
Oklaholma
ALITO (R)
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Iowa
Missouri
Arkansas
STEVENS (RINO)
Illinois
Indiana
Wisconsin
ROBERTS (R)
Michigan
Ohio
Kentucky
Tennessee
SCALIA (R)
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
GINSBURG (D)
New York
Pennsyvania
Deleware
THOMAS (R)
West Virgina
Virgina
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Florida
SOUTER (RINO)
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Mass.
Conn.
Rhode Island
You’d have to reconfigure those districts based on population. They’re not exactly “fairly” drawn as it is.
All nine judges would be directly elected by the voters of their circuit (made up of several states) by popular vote. They would have to be at least 35 but no more than 75 years of age, and could serve a maximum of three 10-year terms. In the event that one of the judges died, resigned, was impeached, etc. before the next general election, the President could appoint (with Senate apporval) a replacement to temporarily fill out the judge's term (just like the current system), however, this judge would only serve until the next election and then have to be elected in his own right (i.e. if Justice Stevens died tomarrow and Bush appointed Harriet Miers to fill the vacancy, she would face the voters in November 2008. If Obama appointed Judge Moonbat to fill a vacancy in Jan. 2009, he would face the voters in November 2010). Very simular to Senate vacancies now.
As before, if the Chief Justice retired, resigned, was impeached (or, with the new system, voted out of office), the President could appoint a new chief justice by choosing amongst the current justices OR appointing someone new to the court. Again, this new Chief Justice would have to face the voters during a regular election. Just like the Speaker of the House or Senate President, his election would be no different than any other judge but he could be defeated rather than serve for life. As before, the Chief Justice does not have to from the majority party of the court. Also as before, the justice next-highest in seniority would serve as acting Chief until a new one was appointed/elected.
Unlike the current system, judges would be nominated by and run under party lines, just as the President and Congress does. Judges could run as "Independant" but would probably have the same success as today's "Independant" candidates for Congress and President do. Likewise, you could theoretically elected Libertarians, Greens, and other third parties to the SC, but in all likelihood the court would consist solely of Republicans and Democrats.
As they would have to run in primary elections, Judges would have to be frank with voters about their judicial philoposhy and raise a great deal of money to conduct a campaign in 3-8 states, and would likely lose the primary if they were supporting the other side's agenda, as is the case with Illinois Supreme Court judges today.
I would require future judges to reside in the judicial circuit they are elected from (that way we have a SC reflecting each region of the US), but Justices currently in office when this amendment was adapted would be exempt from the rule, in much the way same way Truman was exempt from the term limits amendment. Future Presidents could not have "Minnesota twins", or a Rehnquist-O'Connor duo from Arizona, or two Italian-Catholics from New Jersey, etc. Judges could move their residency within 30 days if they wished to stand for election in another circuit. The At-Large and D.C. Circuits would continue to exist, but they would have no representation on the SC, just on the U.S. Court of Appeals.