A simpler solution would be to eliminate the concept of jurists ruling on matters of law. We would eliminate precedent, so rulings would just apply to one case. Human beings wouldn't be required to work out arcane things like whether some law has jurisdiction. It would simply be a matter of political connections of the parties. Each justice slot would be one vote for a political party. Each year they would role dice, and if they got two 1s, that slot would go to the party of whoever's president at the time. This would be so much less expensive and simpler than having a system of laws.

How can their public education handiwork be precipitating Constitutional control?

Right!

Said best!

Natch! but what is good for their gooses now will be good for our gander later.

For about 50 years the liberals have not brought this up, now the court may not favor them for a while and they are all about changing the rules. Liberals are like 2 year olds.

Because they see a cultural change happening that will make it very difficult for them to gain a majority to force their idiotology. I think they underestimate their handiwork with public education. Who am I to ague with their doubts, Hope springs eternal after all.

Yes, clearly. My point is that now that we have a couple of conservative judges that aren't 89 yrs old, they (Living Constitution advocates) want to change to 18 year terms.
These aren't judges anymore. They are legislators. A majority of the people arguing here believe the Roe vs Wade precedent is more important than the Second Amendment. They therefore seek to subvert the Second by reinterpretation, but woe be it to someone suggestiong Roe vs Wade is just about privacy. (not that I am a religious anti-abortioner)

Interesting link in an otherwise lefty publication.

Just run through the titles: most are anti-Trumper.