For those of that are saying we need activist judges who re-interpret the Constitution in ways contrary to original intent, how do you propose we hold these justices and their rulings accountable. The Supreme Court is appointed and for life. The public has no direct say about who will be on the court and has no ability to hold the justices accountable once they join the court.
Technically speaking, they aren't appointed for life. According to the Constitution, their term is "good behavior." Since it doesn't specify what qualifies as good behavior, Congress is well within their rights to throw the justices out whenever they want.
Psychoclown said:
For those of you that argue activism is necessary, I have a few questions.
1. Are you not at all concerned about judges being able to ignore precedent, which is the foundation of our common law system?
Sure, but precedent isn't everything. Sometimes precedents become either morally abhorrent to the modern world (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson), or they become unworkable from a practical standpoint (e.g. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, giving states legal standing on environmental issues). Furthermore, this system has worked for a couple hundred years now, and the courts don't often offer opinions that differ drastically from what people find acceptable.
Psychoclown said:
2. Do you find nothing objectionably about judges using judicial fiat to legislate from the bench, usurping the role of the legislative branch and doing so without being subjected to the same checks and balances that hold the legislative branch accountable and in check?
They are subject to checks and balances. They are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and can be removed from office by the Senate.
Psychoclown said:
3. How does one objectively determine what parts of the Constitution are universal and what parts are outdated?
There's no easy answer to that question. Most often it boils down to two questions: Is the precedent still workable from a practical standpoint, and does it approximately match the values of society. For example, in Article II of the Constitution the president is constantly referred to as "he." This is almost always interpreted in the modern, neutered sense...but the Founding Fathers may very well have meant "he" and not "she." Interpreting the Constitution in such a way would be a stark departure from the values of modern society.
Psychoclown said:
4. If you believe activism is necessary because the amendemnt process is too cumbersome, wouldn't we be better off advocating a change in the amendment process rather than relying on judges are almost completely unaccountable for the decisions they make?
Sure, but any constitutional amendment to change the constitutional amendment process would still have to go through the constitutional amendment process.
Furthermore, I think several key parts of the Constitution indicated that the Founding Fathers did not support an originalist interpretation anyway (or at least, there was no consensus among them on the subject). If they did, I'm hard-pressed to see any reason why they would've included phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment," "good behavior," "high crimes and misdemeanors," or the entirety of the Ninth Amendment. If they really wanted future generations to use THEIR standards, they would've spelled out what they were talking about.