Hmmm. Odd question. Maybe you are trying to be ironic.
No, of course the Executive appointment of judges has not enabled a strong check on the Executive Branch. I think that’s fairly obvious from my previous post.
I’ve read more than a few of the Federalist Papers, notes from the convention (which I find are better sources for understanding the constitution) and many of the Anti-Federalist Papers. What I’ve found is that the problems with the constitution weren’t the objections of the Anti-Federalists that have turned out to be true but where the mechanisms promised by the Federalists didn’t work well enough. Madison and others thought that by appointing judges for life, then that would make them independent enough of the other branches.
They could have had the President appointed by the Legislature but decided not to because, they decided, the Legislature would tend to appoint weak executives. It turns out they may have not gone far enough with that thought. They did not think the Legislature would willingly delegate it’s authority to the Executive through the regulatory process we have today. The founders thought the Legislature would be more possessive of it’s power.
The courts should be more contemptuous of this innovation, laws through executive regulation, which goes against the spirit of the constitution. They aren’t though and I believe it’s because they are people who are sympathetic to the idea of Executive experts making decisions for the legislature. You know, kind of like themselves.
So here is my counter question to you, what natural rights exist that are not enumerated by the constitution? That is, what does the Ninth Amendment cover that isn’t covered elsewhere?
Just to add a reference, here a quote from #51
Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.
Let me give you a short answer before I give you a long answer:
Madison and the founders strived to NOT give the popular voice substantial powers in the government. I not only respect their opinion, I believe it was the ultimate act in wisdom, having drawn their conclusion from much of history.
Back in their days the founders had seen lynch mobs, duels, actual tar and feathering (oh, the days!). They wanted to insulate government from such emotion. The House -alone- was designed to calmly reflect popular opinion, hence its 2 year terms.
Popular opinion can change from minute to minute. Popular opinion does not guide ships, nor pilot aircraft. Popular opinion produces more problems than it solves, because it empowers many elements, the least of which is wisdom.
If we make the constitutional change to elect judges, believe me, the Electoral College is doomed, as may be our entire republican form of government.