Susan, thanks for sharing this. Thorough and thought provoking for sure. I still have to chew over that proposal some more but there is a lot to like in it, and if nothing else, it's a sound springboard to an eventual solution.

The problem I find for our case is not so much the politically ideological differences in legal interpretation. It's the introduction of an individual's personal religious interpretation or indoctrination to our bench. In many of the examples cited, whether the island nation's or European courts, the differences were generally ideological or concerned empowerment of nationalities or ethnicities. None seemed to contain the wrinkle that our own nation seems to have alone: a distinctly papal influence in interpreting our Constitution.

I like the nonpartisan board of selectors idea as a means to possibly counter that, with further assurances in confirmation swearing in that the interpretation of the law will deal with secular law only, and not invoke religion of any type in legal rulings. Our country was founded with separation of church and state for a reason, and this should and must be maintained. It's meant to be a democratic republic, not a theocracy and I say that as someone trying, and mostly failing, to live as a person of faith.