This never occurs to Hugo for some reason.
A Court system which depends on the transient figure of the president for its existence can hardly be anything but political. That's where the fetish for political balance on the Court comes from. It is simply an extension of the overweening impulse to limit the Executive power. And it's not a coincidence that the loudest voices for it come from the Legislative. It's an expression of their tyranny over everything.
Of course the Supreme Court is a political institution.
It is appointed by an elected president, and confirmed by an elected Senate. But it is the two term limit which sharpens its tip, raising the stakes over every appointment.
The Court has become more political precisely because the political power of the Executive which appoints it has been limited. It's how the wronged Executive manages to live on, long after he has been forced from the scene. He routinely runs for office partly on the promise to partisans that he will make the right appointments to the bench.
If the Framers had intended the Executive to be hamstrung in this way while the other two branches were not, they would have said so.
The people have the right to elect whomever to the presidency as often as they wish, just as they have the right to return Nancy Pelosi to the US House year after year. They also have the right to get rid of the bum if they don't like his appointments. Anything less gives too much power to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, and to the judges he leaves behind.
The way to improve constancy of meaning on the Court and consistency in the rule of law is to improve both in the Executive.
We aren't going to be saved by a Court which has temporarily recovered its senses. They could just as well lose them again. And they'll also still be there, long after the president who appointed them is gone.
Who checks the Court?
