Oversight of the Supreme Court?

The system of checks and balances is weighted heavily towards the Judicial branch. The Supreme Court can strike down any piece of legislation as unconstitutional and interpret the Constitution however they feel, but Congress and the president have no power over the court or any individual sitting justice. The "check" against the Judical branch is that justices have to be nominated by the president and approved by the legislature; once approved, justices serve for life and cannot be fired except in the case of mental incapacitation.

This is supposed to be a good thing, since it means the justices are removed from the political ramifications of their decisions. They are able to do what's right without having to worry about being popular or offending anyone.

However, it is impossible for politicians to make apolitical decisions. Conservative presidents nominate conservative justices, liberal presidents nominate liberal justices. Congressional hearings on a Supreme Court nominee focus on the candidate's political leanings, for obvious reasons, but this also means that a liberal Congress is likely to block a conservative nominee and vice versa ("getting Borked"). Bottom line, the decision is still political, and once the decision is made there's nothing anyone but the justice them self can do about it.

Now, take for example the Dred Scott decision. The court ruled that slaves did not gain freedom by entering non-slave states, that it was unconstitutional to ban slavery in a newly formed state, and that slaves were not people and had no right to sue in court. The personal political opinions of six pro-slavery judges decided that issue for the entire United States. Obviously shit like that wouldn't fly in the modern, not-crazily-racist court, but back then slavery was a divisive issue and a good portion of the country agreed with the decision.

Slavery was not the last issue that would (or will) divide this country. Privacy rights are going to be determined by current and future justices, decisions that will very much affect the daily lives of Americans, and they are going to be made by people who were selected by the government for their political leanings and who cannot be removed from their position regardless of how they rule. You may have heard that the Supreme Court is going to rule on warrantless searches by law enforcement, and that not all the justices believe such actions to be unconstitutional.
HIGHTIMES.COM > Supreme Court Considers No Warrant Searches

So, what do you think? Should we encourage more oversight of the Supreme Court, more checks and balances to level the playing field with the other two branches? If so, how? Should the nomination and approval process be more grueling than it already is; perhaps Congress should favor candidates who appear politically neutral? Or do you think increased oversight of the court would just politicize the Judicial branch even more, making the problem worse?

Thanks to those who read the whole thing.

 

This never occurred to me and it's never come up when I've discussed this issue with other people...brainfart lol. It's a limited power though, because amendments are so rare compared to Supreme Court rulings, but I guess it would be enough to prevent the court from openly abusing its power.

Do you know if the court could ever find an amendment unconstitutional? Like, what about that proposed amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman? If that had gone through, and people tried to file suit that it was unconstitutional, wouldn't the case end up before the Supreme Court?

edit - tried to rep you but I couldn't, thanks for the info anyway

Anonymous has goals? That's pretty frightening.

 

If it contradicts another part.