Robert Bork Quote- Supreme Court Suggestion

Bork with President Gerald Ford, under whom he served as the 35th United States Solicitor General

I picked up that Robert Bork book "Slouching Towards Gommorah" again, and had to write down some more favorite quotes. This book, published in 1996, is full of accurate lessons and predictions for what our country is turning into. It's sometimes hard to read, but it seems every page is full of very well-thought succinct explanations of the illogical 'philosophies' of the left. It's so unfortunate that this genius was cheated out of a position on the Supreme Court because he is conservative. He actually made a really good suggestion on his chapter, "The Supreme Court as an Agent of Modern Liberalism', which may be seen as extremist, only because it threatens the monopoly the left has over the fate of the country. He says,

"Culture is made by the fiat of a majority of nine lawyers and forced upon the nation."

I agree that there is a problem with that kind of life-long power. His solution:

"There appears to be only one means by which the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, can be brought back to constitutional legitimacy. That would be a constitutional amendment making any federal or state court decision subject to being overruled by a majority vote of each House of Congress."

He defends it:

"There is no reason to suppose that representatives and senators would be skilled interpreters of the Constitution, but then the Court isn't either--or rather chooses not to be. If constitutional jurisprudence remained a mess, at least it would be a mess arrived at democratically...There is no reason to regard this proposal as at odds with constitutionalism. When Congress proposed the original Constitution and the various amendments, it did so by laying them before the states for democratic decision. The Supreme Court changes the Constitution without any such ratifying process. The clearest equivalent would be laying judicial changes of the Constitution before Congress for ratification or rejection."

That won't happen until the justices start veering right, or anywhere but sharply left, but it would make case decisions a lot more representative with what Americans want. I understand that the justices need to serve lifelong terms, because if they had to be elected, they wouldn't be objective in their decisions. But the system is still flawed, as the majority of the justices are heavily influenced by civil liberties whackos and the like. Plus, it will give Congress a job to do finally, so they can quit taking their weekly vacations.