It seemed like a good idea to me at first, but on reflection I am not too sure. One of the very strengths of humanity is our diversity of culture, beliefs, and ideals. This suggestion will serve to moderate individual opinion in favor for the average. But we know the average is not always the best way out; otherwise one could say that smoking was good because most men used to smoke 50 years ago (I am not sure of my stats here, but you get the drift).

Although we might not like some of the more radical opinions, they actually do serve a purpose – even if it’s just to give us a better understanding of our own opinions.

Regarding those on the receiving end of the justice these guys deal out; that is why we have an appeals process. No human process has ever been perfect though, so we can do with some systemic improvements. However, I am not sure this will be one of them. Good intention though!

Excellent idea (but it assumes that the two party system persists indefinitely). A far left person would have to consider whether they wanted thier "guy" appointed, but also a far right guy. So instead they would go to the center. Great idea.

Note that judges don't always turn out to be who you expect. I think Justice Souter was appointed by a Republican president (Bush 1.0 maybe?), but has voted to the 'left' more often. Likewise, when the Terri Shiavo debacle happened and Congress voted to give the federal judges authority to step in, presumably hoping the federal judges would halt the disconnection of Ms. Shiavo, the federal judges completely declined to overrule the state judge's ruling.