not buying the premise.
your argument here is about as political in nature as it gets. Your post shows very little true concern for the US Constitution or the principles behind it. Oh, I know you must think it does, but then again people who do great harm to others and institutions in the name of saving them, almost always have what they consider good reasons for what they say and do.
In a way you are right. Adoration of the constitution has been a huge block in our way to becoming a modern nation. It is vague to the point that it has become whatever five old men/women say it is and these five old people are usually appointed for their devotion to ideology rather than their judicial expertise. (think Clarence Thomas)
So yes, I do think the constitution needs amending to change the structure of the Supreme court to something like I proposed. The court was not supposed to be political. It was not set up as a check to congressional legislation. It was set up to administer national and international law.
If we are to continue to charge it with the ability to veto legislation it has to be more of a court and less of a political circus.
if you say so, but still don't buy the main premise "It's obvious the Court has become political in nature..."
The premise is not obvious to people with a critical thinking skill set.
The Court has always struggled with political issues and ideology. But I say what you are talking about is more rare than common. But then again, I know a bit about the history of the Court. Most people here speak about what the Us Constitution says. The Founding Fathers and the Framers often disagreed with each other and even themselves.
The history of the Court makes the main premise look like fantasy or worse -- overly political partisanship with ideology driving people's world views.
Falling back on what people imagine the Constitution says is often the arguments of weak minded small people.
