I’ve noticed that people either accept or reject Supreme Court rulings, especially the most significant ones. But they’ve come up with a way to overturn them.

This proposed amendment would be based on the ratification provision in the Constitution, which requires only three-quarters of the states to approve an amendment. However, this amendment would only serve to overturn Supreme Court rulings if three-quarters of the state supreme courts reject the ruling or issue a contrary ruling.

If the threshold is met, the ruling could be overturned in the first case or the contrary ruling could be applied in the second. What would be the political and judicial consequences if this amendment were to take effect?

    • OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
      4·
      2 hours ago

      Yeah, there’s two problems with this.

      1. Congress is non-functional and can’t act as a check on the executive branch or the courts. In the past they’ve passed fuck you laws where they initially passed a law saying X, the supreme court interpreted it to say Y and then they passed a clearer version of X. This hasn’t happened in a long time.
      2. The supreme court likes to reinterpret the constitution. This means if you want to correct the supreme courts interpretation you have to pass a constitutional amendment. Even if Congress functioned properly this would be difficult.

      The idea we’re talking about wouldn’t work anyway. The problem is, many of the state supreme court judges are also batshit.

      The only way round this is to copy other countries that have functional judicial systems and stop making judges either political appointments or directly elected. They need to be professionals selected on merit, and firable, or at least replaceable after a term, if they’re incompetent.