Replies

While I would prefer the repeal of the 17th Amendment, I must agree that the chances of a repeal are unlikely. But there is an alternative that might prove to be even better than a repeal, solving this problem and many others.

An amendment to create a Second Court of the United States. It would rank in between the Supreme Court and the federal District Courts, but it would *not* itself be a federal court. Instead it would be composed of 100 judges appointed by the State legislatures.

Every year, some 8,000 cases are appealed from the federal District Courts to the Supreme Court, that can only hear a couple of dozen of them. The rest, no matter how important, are stuck with the decision made by the federal District Courts.

The Second Court of the United States would get first crack at these cases, *not* to determine if they were constitutional or not; but a step further, to determine if they should be handled by the federal courts *at all*, or should be returned to the State courts in which most of them began.

Additionally, the Second Court of the United States would act as a “nullification court”, giving the States a means to possibly reject new federal laws and mandates, bureaucratic regulations, executive orders, etc., that the States felt exceeded federal authority.

The Second Court of the United States would have original jurisdiction in all cases involving lawsuits between the States and the federal government, such as the effort of the Justice Department to sue Arizona over its anti-illegal alien bill. If enough States supported Arizona’s stand, they could decide to slap the Department with an injunction to stop the suit.

Not so fast. Much of the crap that has been forced upon us has been from judges legislating from the bench. I am not in favor of creating more of the same.

Through the courts, the majority of the people in the USA have been forced to live more and more according to the desires of 20% of the electorate. Anything they can't get through Congress, is achieved through the courts.

Most recent example: Alaska write in votes. State law clearly states the name must be spelled correctly. Judge says not really, the intent of the voter rules. Judge should have said I think the state law needs to be revisited, but at the present time, the law must be followed. JMHO..

I agree that the amendment needs repealing and is totally unlikely, but what if states set up a system to allow voters to recall their senators with 60% of the vote required to pass the recall petition?

I don't know if your idea can be codified in a way that it could be enforced, or not.
But what's certain, IMHO, is that the judiciary is broken because the judges/justices are confirmed by the Senate, and with direct election of senators, senators are nothing other than federal legislators representing the people of the states, rather than the state (government)s themselves.
Repealing the 17th is the obvious solution, but not the only solution. You could also amend the Constitution to allow presidential candidates to nominate judges/justices at the start of their election campaigns - and be entitled to name those judges/justices as the need arose, without Senate confirmation. The election campaign would constitute the vetting of these judges. It could also empower the states to unelect justices, but said justices would continue to serve until the next presidential election (so it wouldn't be known who would name the unelected justices' successors).
The Constitution should also specify the number of justices on SCOTUS, so that court packing would be absolutely off the table.