Still, I'm disappointed with his proposal: Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy . . .
The crumbled remains of our republic do not need any more of that which caused our downfall in the first place, which is too much democracy.
As Cruz pointed out, the Senate has become institutionally incapable of fulfilling its duty to convict all but the worst dirtbag federal magistrates, judges, appointees, presidents. Neither will it trim the jurisdiction of federal courts.
The narrow solution is to reform the senate so that it can perform its appropriate, legitimate and constitutional duties.
The broader solution is to super-federalize the government as per Mark Levin's proposed amendments.
I'm sure you're absolutely right that "the Senate has become institutionally incapable of fulfilling its duty to convict all but the worst dirtbag federal magistrates, judges, appointees, presidents. Neither will it trim the jurisdiction of federal courts."
Yet the Congress must act first: The Senate cannot bring a bill of impeachment; only the House can. Then the Senate can convict — or not.
Yet it appears Congress will not impeach; nor will they stipulate "Exceptions" or constraints on the power of the federal courts, let alone the Supreme Court — the tools the Constitution explicitly grants them in Sections 1 & 2 of Article III, in order to counter and correct judicial usurpation of the liberties of the people and the just, retained powers of the several States — powers that were deliberately reserved to the States and thus to be protected against federal encroachment. The Court this week nationalized, or federalized, what have been universally recognized as State powers for the past 239 years — i.e., marriage, and provisions WRT matters concerning healthcare.
What is the point of devising new tools, or novel amendments, when the tools we already have are being ignored? How long before the new tools are themselves ignored?
I think you are absolutely right to worry that "more democracy" would do more harm than good. But this appears to be what Cruz is calling for, with his proposal to make any judge or justice holding lifetime appointment (subject to "good behavior") "directly accountable" to the People in a national referendum taken every eight years.
We are a constitutional Republic, not a direct democracy. Our electoral conventions are democratic; but the Republic is defined by the Constitution, not by the direct will of the people. That will is subjected to, and is constrained by, fundamental constitutional principles, preeminently the separation and balance of powers, and strictly enumerated powers of Congress. As noted above, Congress has the power of Impeachment and of constraining the Supreme Court's natural tendency to devolve into what Thomas Jefferson called "the tyranny of the oligarchy." Which plainly is what we have today.
Two last thoughts before closing: (1) Plato, founder of political philosophy, detested the very idea of "democracy," thinking it the fast route to mob rule. Certainly that notion was particularly well validated by the French Revolution. Arguably, "mob rule," manipulated by ideological activists, increasingly is what disorders American society these days. In consequence, there is no "rule of law"; there is only the "rule of men."
(2) What was truly shocking to me respecting the two SCOTUS decisions this week was what they had in common: Both were usurpations of the powers of the several States recognized under the Tenth Amendment. Both cases were demonstrations of frank judicial tyranny predicated on a contempt for the Constitution, clearly in complete breach of their own Oaths of Office.
In short, no "Good Behavior" there. The constitutional prescription in such a case is Impeachment and/or congressional modification of SCOTUS jurisdiction.
But no one seems to have the stomach for this, these days.... So, I believe you reach the just conclusion that what is needed is to reform, not only the Senate, but Congress as well. That sort of thing is resolved in the electoral process. That takes time; but time is what we seem to be running out of.
But the "demos" (the American people) hasn't got a clue about this pressing need.... They don't notice (or possibly they don't much care) that they are being ineluctably, systematically deprived of their historic constitutional liberties. They are too often willing to "sell their souls for a mess of pottage."
I don't have a clue how to solve that problem — which is fundamentally a moral problem. But I feel pretty sure that neither Ted Cruz's, or Mark Levin's "prescriptions" would make much of a difference.
Dear Jacquerie, thank you ever so much for your thoughtful and thought-provoking essay/post.