Maintaining an independent judiciary has been more of a problem in U.S. history than many people might think.

In 1937, the Supreme Court caved into political pressure from FDR and began ruling New Deal programs constitutional. Prior to that the courts from time to time found ways to make rulings favorable to whatever elite held power, such as the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 which essentially made the federal government into a slave-catcher for white plantation owners in the South.

Probably the only way to really guarantee an independent judiciary is to elect judges by popular vote, an idea many people shudder at.

But if the terms were relatively long - say 7 years - and term limits were in place, it might work better than the current system of essentially lifetime appointments.

Such a reform would certainly shake up the federal judiciary and would guarantee that judges think a bit longer and more deeply about their decisions.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't like the idea of electing judges. The lifetime appointment system for federal judges has worked pretty well, considering all the so-called "conservative" appointments which turned out to be "liberal" in contrast to the appointing president's wishes : )

The U.S. Supreme Court has saved this country's Constitution many times over because of its removal as far as possible from politics.

But in the Bush era, the drive is on to make the judiciary as political as possible. This is a serious mistake, which we will pay for in many ways for years to come.