And in addition to the fact that they're 4 judges out of 9,800 total state and federal judges (which federal judges are also regionally allocated so as not to have Connecticut judges hearing Alaskan controversies), those four are extremely limited in which cases they can hear.
It's impossible to look at the US judicial system and come away with the conclusion that it heedless of the concerns of Floridians hearing Alaskan cases. The US system is almost literally the opposite of that.
> those four are extremely limited in which cases they can hear.
And the ECHR are extremely limited in which cases they can hear. Thus, we agree that just as scotus doesn't mean that you have a bunch of gun-slingin' Texans passing laws to control the lives of portland Oregon hipsters, we don't have frog-eating French controlling the lives of the Roast Beefs.
The limitation you're referring to is substantive, and the limitation I'm referring to is procedural. They aren't remotely the same thing. The implicit proposal you're referring to gives an unrepresentative international tribunal the power to override democratic process over a whole area of policy.
Tell me how people in Montana feel about the three justices born in New York City: Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg? Tell me how much people in Montana like edicts coming down from Washington, D.C.?
We have a Supreme Court, and we need one because we're one country under one Constitution and one Federal Government, but it's been bitterly divisive and I don't know why any country would want to subject themselves to that without those constraints.
