Finally got around to reading Ross Douthat's column this week, and...it's good. I think this is the first one that a) is completely sound and b) that I agree with. I, for one, would like to see something along these lines:

There are bipartisan ways that the Court could be reined in, and the legislative branch reinvigorated. Shugerman, Caminker and others have proposed a supermajority rule, for instance, requiring a 6-to-3 vote to overturn federal legislation. To get conservatives on board, the rule would have to be extended to state legislation as well. This isn’t as crazy as it sounds — versions of the supermajority idea have been batted around by left and right alike since Reconstruction, and merely proposing it might spur the Court toward greater consensus, and perhaps greater modesty as well.

I do think it's clear--to honest conservatives as well as to liberals--that we need to add some additional checks to the Court's power. They do have a tendency to act up, and sometimes just making a push to bring them under control--think of FDR's failed court packing scheme--sometimes is enough to bring them in line. I generally oppose the filibuster as it is presently constituted, but I think that it might make some sense with respect to judicial nominees, to ensure that nobody too radical winds up on the bench. Then again, it wouldn't have worked with John Roberts, so maybe what Douthat's suggesting is better.