People complain of "activist judges legislating from the bench" if a judge's opinion overrules majority opinion. But if we've come to rely on the judiciary to protect the minority (often their civil rights) from the tyranny of the majority, then something is already wrong. This is a job for the upper houses of legislatures, for example the Senate.
If votes regularly split down party lines in the Senate, then something is wrong. With deliberation, consensus should often be possible, though it might be consensus that it should be decided by popular vote, in which case rubber stamping the lower house.
We grant long terms of office to Senators to insulate them from the voters somewhat, to give them the opportunity to be statesmen, not politicians. We don't do proportionate representation because any state should be able to find at least two statesman within its ranks. Senators shouldn't represent their state, they should represent the country. Maybe we need to limit to a single term only, to even lessen politics?
Direct election of senators is a bad idea, though I'll buy that what it replaced (appointment by state legislatures) was an even worse idea because of corruption. Is there a better way? (Random selection from people who've passed the citizenship exam? Quiz show?)
We must also choose the upper houses of state legislatures.
No comments :
Post a Comment