Asklemmy

54356 readers

269 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

[US] Should there be an amendment that allows Supreme Court rulings to be overturned? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 18 hours ago by IsaamoonKHGDT_6143@lemmy.zip to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 14 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't the answer supposed to be to just change the law?

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 7 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Yeah, there's two problems with this.

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.
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.