One way we can improve the U.S. system of government is to change the nature of U.S. Supreme Court appointments. Anyone watching the appointment process realizes that there is a bitter partisan rivalry in which the money funding Democratic and Republican interests is highly involved, resulting in judges more serving oligopolic and ideological interests than serving the general society and Constitutional principles, with legal skills as top Constitutional scholars.
Another problem with the Supreme Court, in retrospect, is that it generally serves the consolidation of federal power, having little desire to see the states as a check on federal power. This is, in part, because it is part of the federal government, appointed by federal elites, and the power and prestige of the federal government reflects on the Court.
I would like to propose and appointment system that would serve as a corrective to this problem, giving us a Court less controlled by money and more responsive to the concept of a federal system rather than to a consolidated national state:
When there is a Supreme Court vacancy, allow each state legislature to nominate a highly qualified constitutional scholar from their state. Then choose from the nominations by lottery.
Drawing lots is the surest way of guaranteeing that no financial interest could control the outcome. That interest would have to control the selection process of 50 state legislatures. Further, state legislatures will be more concerned about state’s rights and interests, and tend to appoint justices that have a higher level of scholarship and will represent state interests rather than interests of corporations, labor unions, or other divisive political factions.