Asklemmy

54356 readers

274 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 15 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

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago

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