Supreme Court Under Attack

The Supreme Court has recently come under attack by several academics for reasons ranging from its unwillingness to televise its hearings to the life time terms (this link will take you to interesting piece arguing for term limits of the Justices) that the Justices serve. But in a recent blog post Prof. Geoffrey Stone asks the enticing question: "Do we need the Supreme Court?"

Stone sets forth 20 of the more controversial/landmark decisions and then asks:

How many of these 20 decisions do you think reflect good policy for the nation? Do you agree with the Supreme Court that on such matters the People should not be permitted through their elected representatives to act contrary to these decisions? What do you think led you to think that some decisions were "good" while others were "bad? Can you discern any principle that leads you to judge some decisions as "good" and others as "bad"? Or is it just a matter of opinion? When all is said and done, has the Supreme Court's exercise of the power of judicial review been good or bad for the nation? Do we need the Supreme Court?

His point obviously is whether nine judges should be determining important questions of law or whether elected representatives should be.