Maybe you should compare the scope of state judges with federal judges. State judges (elected or appointed) deal with the issues of the individual states. Federal judges are the ones these days who are overturning state issues because of politics. I don't think comparing to judges works.
it wont do ANYTHING for states rights, because states themselves don’t stand up for their rights.
A trend that was started after the enactment of the 17th amendment perhaps? A self-fulfilling prophecy? A vicious circle? Ceding the appointment power to the people results in less legislature power results in unbeholden Senators results in less states' ability to defend rights results in increasing power grabs by the federal government?
-PJ
You miss the point of my analogy. Texas elects Judges - the elected state supreme court in Texas is much better than the selected state supreme courts in many other states, like Florida or Michigan or ... most other states.
"A trend that was started after the enactment of the 17th amendment perhaps? " ... It has NOTHING to do with the 17th amendment. It has a lot more to do with the New Deal and FDR. Before FDR, the Federal Govt was about 3% of GDP, and when he left it was 25% of GDP... we never went back. NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW SENATORS WERE
It's sad that people are rushing off to propose an irrelevent change while the REAL issue is right in front of us - Leviathan Federal Government.
"vicious circle? Ceding the appointment power to the people results in less legislature power" ... your state lege has PLENTY of power and doesnt need selection of senators to stand up for their state. My concern is that making accountability more remote via indirect elec