Wigderson versus U.S. Constitution

Hmmmm.

Dropping into Milwaukee to remind us all why she was President Ronald Reagan’s biggest mistake, former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told her audience that electing judges is wrong, and that Arizona has a better way. Of course, the Arizona method made her a judge, and her tenure on the US Supreme Court is strong evidence that an unaccountable judiciary is not a good thing.

Okay. I can understand having objections to changing Wisconsin's judiciary to an appointed, rather than elected, one. Reasonable people certainly can disagree. But is Wigderson really saying that the framers made a huge mistake when they wrote Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, recieve for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

(Emphasis mine.) Yes, Sandra Day O'Connor is proof positive that the framers got it wrong. It's miraculous that the Republic was not undone by her wanton flip-floppery. (Sarcasm!) Of course, Wigderson is probably thanking his lucky stars that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will be serving for life or good behavior, so I really wonder if he'd be willing to give that up in exchange for knowing that there would be no more "unaccountable" O'Connors on the loose.

I suppose I could use Scalia et al as evidence that an appointed judiciary is a bad thing. But I accept that the framers intended for Supreme Court justices to be essentially above reproach. I would argue that justices of state supreme courts serve much the same function and deserve the same protection, be they liberal or conservative. Justices of the highest courts in the land, be it the state or the country, should not, to my mind, have to worry about whether following the law will cost them in the next election. The framers, at least, understood this when they wrote Article III, Section 1.