Should Supreme Court Justices be elected?

[acsenray]

In my view, one of the main reasons for having the federal judiciary is to "defy the will of the people," or, rather, as I would put it, to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

[acsenray]

I have a question for everyone posting here.

We currently have many judges across the nation legislating from the bench. How do we stop judges from doing this? What are some solutions to solving this problem? I can not currently think of any answer.

You haven't made the case that there is any need to "stop" anything. Judges in the Common Law system have always been active players in the creation of law (known as "common law" or "black-letter law" or "precedential law" or "judge-made law"). Legislation can rarely be so specifically written as to take into account all possible circumstances. Judges have to interpret the will of the legislature as well as whether the legislature's will interferes with fundamental rights. This role is especially important in preventing tyranny of the majority as I mentioned before. The term "legislating from the bench" is merely a pejorative characterization used by those who disagree with the judges' decisions.

[acsenray]

I used to think it would be a good idea to have them elected, but after reading all the arguments I reconsider. But still, I'd like to share some toughts about it:
--Many State Supremem Court Justices are elected. They're decisions seem little worse than any other State Supreme courte Justice.

Except in the cases in which there is rampant corruption and favoritism shown by elected supreme court judges (such as in Ohio). Usually, this kind of thing doesn't affect constitutional matters, but the fact is that state courts handle few constitutional cases. Usually it's commercial suits, injury suits, criminal cases, and administrative functions, all of which are rife with corruption.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plus, voters usually have no information on which to base voting for judges. In a state like Ohio, where they remove party labels from the ballot in judicial races, there is even less information. As a result, judicial races are usually based on either pure name recognition or some kind of off-the-wall nonsense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a red herring. Judges do "stick to interpreting the law as written," except when they decide that the law is unconstitutional (or beset by some other technical flaw). Judges, in fact, defer to the legislature all the time, except when the legislature is interfering with a fundamental right.

[acsenray]

If the judges stuck to interpreting the law as written, this wouldn't be a problem.

This is a red herring. Judges do "stick to interpreting the law as written," except when they decide that the law is unconstitutional

Interpretation includes determining that a law is nullified by a higher law.  Our Constitution is simply the highest law in the land.  Declaring a law unconstitutional is still interpreting the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Determining that a law is badly phrased or self-contradictory is also interpreting the law.

I think I'm pretty much agreeing with you here. I don't think -- contrary to the Republican line -- that the federal judiciary constitutes an out-of-control, unelected tyranny. I think the federal judiciary (except for Scalia and Thomas and except in Bush v. Gore) has pretty much doing its job conscientiously and properly over the past few decades. The courts have been doing what courts have always done with regard to interpreting and applying the law.