Need proof that the judiciary was intended to be unaccountable

[Jackson4Gore]

Guys, I am arguing with a right winger who believes that judges should be and were intended to be held accountable for their decesions. Clearly that is false. They have don't have term limits or anything else so they can't be influenced or become too political.

When the Founding Fathers sat up the three branches of gov. they made two that would be accountable to the people, and one that was not. That one is the judiciary.

Can you guys provide me some sources of info that backs up that claim?

I am busy and I figured someone would have something I could use as proof.

Thanks

[Mairead]

1. You've got it a bit wrong. Madison et al. set things up so that

the federal government is not really accountable to the People at all. And he/they did it INTENTIONALLY, to protect the wealthy (really! you can look it up) There've been a few changes since then that have slightly improved things, but not much.

[SlipperySlope]

2. Not exactly...

The House was elected directly by the people, and was intended to be accountable to the people..

The Senate was elected by the State legislators.
The President is (and was) elected by state-appointed individuals called Electors.
And the Judiciary is appointed by the executive.

So one-half of one branch was directly accountable to the people.

[Mairead]

3. And as Patrick Henry among others pointed out very ascerbically

the fact that, under Madison's scheme, one House member was meant to represent at least 30K people (600K today) meant that (a) only a few in each district would have any social connection to the rep, and (b) because of the cost of mounting a campaign among that many people, only the wealthy would be able to stand for election in most cases, thus assuring that the People would be represented only nominally.