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?
Yeah I have no idea what the state supreme court would effectively having a veto do.
There’s also logistical stuff what would constitute a vote to rejecting a ruling. Also contrary ruling would need to be defined since I can see a Court/judge issuing a contradictory ruling that only differs slightly from a supreme court ruling.
My take is that the Issues with check’s is that it requires people to enforce the check of power. Idk if state courts are any better than the supreme Court, most likely the state courts couldn’t do anything with the high threshold. I wouldn’t be against this amendment like this one, but it wouldn’t come up that much