That is the suggestion of Lani Guinier, commenting on the sort of Obamanations that will be nominated to the Supreme Court if the Democrats win the presidency this fall.

Harvard law professor Lani Guinier hopes to get scholars, as well as judges, to rethink the role of a Supreme Court justice, a role she describes as "the justice as a teacher in a national seminar, an educator."

"They're not just making laws and delivering those tablets from Mount Olympus," Guinier said. "The project of being a Supreme Court justice is also a project of being an important citizen in a democracy."

While Guinier said she would not necessarily argue that the next president should nominate a politician, she said it was important to "make the court more democratically accountable."

Funny, I've read the US Constitution -- it does not include any role for a justice as "teacher in a national seminar". It vests them with the judicial power -- the authority to interpret and apply the laws and the Constitution. Indeed, too many judges have forgotten that since the 1930s, believing that the language of statutes and Constitutional provisions are secondary to the latest legal theory or foreign law and precedent.

But if she really wants to make the Supreme Court (and the rest of the courts, too) "democratically accountable", I've got an idea -- let's follow the model here in Texas. Let's bring some real democracy into the picture by allowing the voters to democratically elect judges.

Indeed, let me offer a proposal. We have nine Supreme Court justices Let's break them into three separate classes, just like we do Senators. Stagger their elections -- put three of them up for election to a twelve year term every four years, during the even-numbered year in which there is not a presidential election. Give Circuit Court judges eight year terms, staggered so that half are reelected every four years in the non-presidential year. Put District Court judges on the ballot every four years, during the non-presidential year.

Oh, wait, you don't want them THAT democratically accountable? You're afraid that the people will vote the entire Ninth Circuit off the island? That the justices who oppose the Second Amendment and coddle terrorists and teenage killers would be booted from the bench -- along with any judge who tried to impose gay marriage nationwide? Isn't that "democratic accountability"?

Oh, I see -- what you meant is that the justices must be "Democratically accountable". That there must be some mechanism for getting them to always rule in a manner consistent with the Democrat platform, since it is so hard to get many of its more liberal ideas enacted by legislative bodies that are "democratically accountable".

And given that the overwhelming majority of Americans view the Supreme Court as "just right" or "too liberal", I find your suggestion that the Court doesn;t really represent the mainstream of the American mind to be rather disingenuous anyway.