So in light of Posner’s new conception of the judicial mission, I have a modest proposal of my own for updating what has become obsolete: Let federal judges stand for election themselves. I’m prepared to exempt trial judges, who have fewer opportunities for such sweeping pronouncements, and whose decisions in criminal trials, for example, probably shouldn’t be affected by electoral prospects. But for those who aspire to function as Platonic Guardians, I think a little more rootedness is called for.

I therefore propose that federal Court of Appeals judges be appointed for nine years, after which they may be retained for another nine years if a majority of voters in their Circuit agree. Supreme Court Justices, on the other hand, should have to actually stand for election. Instead of nominating people and sending their names to the Senate, the president should name three candidates and put them before the people: The one who gets the most votes should get the seat, and that person, too, would serve for nine years, renewable by the voters for another nine.

It’s true that this would work a major change on the federal judiciary — even greater than Posner’s court has wrought on the Civil Rights Act, in fact. But it’s consistent with the changing mores that have seen most states adopt some sort of election process for judicial selection, leaving the federal judiciary’s undemocratic character an outdated relic of an earlier, more elitist era.