The fault of most modern politics is that politicians are taking action on issues they have no idea about, and the only words they hear about such problems are those paid for with the largest pocketbooks.
I think the fault runs even deeper than that. The idea that "if lots of ignorant people work together and find common ground to agree on, something intelligent will pop out" seems to be a cornerstone that we have built our society upon. Two ignorant legal teams duking it out is not the recipe for a sensible outcome; the only thing that happens when one of them wins is that they can convince themselves that the victory must mean something profound.
The only hope for the system that I have seen so far is surprisingly intelligent and sensible judges injecting sanity into the system.. but that is hardly something to rely upon.
I don't think anyone ever planned in the long term for the system to evolve into ignorance. I don't remember any hard evidence, but I would figure earlier on in Americas history congressmen might consult intellectuals and experts on issues they were debating in congress, or maybe a judge might pull in an expert. I think practices like that fell out when law became such a profound convoluted discipline unto itself that anyone without a law degree was disqualified from engaging a court at an intellectual level.
From my perspective, the fact that the US constitution was given an initial set of amendments, as well as making amendments unusually difficult for the 'will of the people' to change (and as well as all the other safeguards put in place) suggests that the drafters/signers of the original document were placing more trust in themselves than in the democratic process which would follow. The safeguards I think were viewed as necessary because 'the will of the people' wasn't viewed as something that would, by definition, be good. Basically I don't think they really trusted democracy.
That's just my, probably controversial, take on it though.
They just didn't want controversial ideas to make it into the constitution since they would be so hard to overturn, so they made the amendment process insanely complex.
The track record on that isn't too stellar though, considering prohibition and what not.
I remember quotes about Jefferson thinking the constitution should be rewritten every generation. Not sure about the accuracy there, but I like the idea.
