Cup of Joe-diciary

In the aftermath of the Terri Schiavo legal battle, a coalition of conservative political figures called the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration is demanding major reforms of the U.S. federal judiciary, even up to the level of the Supreme Court. These reforms include "withdrawing the courts' jurisdiction over all cases related to the acknowledgment of God or to the protection of marriage ... impeaching judges that substitute 'their own views for the original meaning of the Constitution,' or base a decision on foreign law; and ... reducing or eliminating funding for the federal courts when judges 'overstep their constitutional authority'" (Christian Science Monitor, April 13). \nFurthermore, the Judeo-Christian Council appears to have serious political muscle. According to The Washington Post (April 9), their April 7 and 8 conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," had a guest-list including "two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's 'Ten Commandments' judge Roy Moore; and (House Majority Leader Tom) DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral."\nHardly one to miss the chance to join such an august bandwagon, I thought I, myself, would take the opportunity to advance a few modest proposals for reforming the federal judiciary. Here are my recommendations:\n• Make judges accountable. Practices such as the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices, intended to shield them from political pressures, risk making them unresponsive to public opinion and ... well... political pressures. Term limits and direct election are possible remedies, but, really, they don't go far enough. Instead, we must closely examine how these courts are serving their country. To start, those arguing before federal courts should receive cards asking "Were you pleased with the quality of deliberation you received today?" on which they can check "very pleased," "somewhat pleased," "somewhat displeased," or "very displeased." Too many "very displeased" comments? Sounds like grounds for impeachment to me.\n• Bring the judiciary to the people. In the U.S. Federal Court System, there are only 95 district courts, 12 circuit courts of appeals, and one Supreme Court for the entire country! Clearly, this is not enough. There should be at least one federal court in every community -- maybe two or three. Heck, one on every street corner. I shouldn't have to drive halfway across town just to get a hearing.\n• How to fund the federal judiciary. Why do people like you and me have to pay for these courts out of our tax dollars? Chances are you'll never use one -- unless you want to keep appealing that citation for public intoxication and lewd conduct with a marine animal. So, why not just bill the people going before them? In fact, the government could make a bundle on the franchise rights alone. Imagine: In exchange for an initial investment, you get an official seal, federal court stationary, employee handbooks, etc. \nThe U.S. federal court system has tremendous brand value, and, obviously, we're failing to leverage it to its full potential.\n• Make the judiciary user-friendly. We've all seen courtrooms -- those long rows of wooden folding chairs, all turned toward the bench like an auditorium from hell. Try this instead: what if we put in comfy armchairs, and arrange them in small groups around coffee tables, and throw in some magazines or books or board games? Even install free Wi-Fi access? Why, that wouldn't be so bad, would it? There's too much stress in our lives already; court should be a place where you can just hang out all day and relax.\nAnd if they served iced mocha lattés? Well, that would be just brilliant.