How about two thirds of the State Supreme Courts over-ruling the SCOTUS?
It’s an idea. I welcome the discussion.
How about state’s appointing their two senators and being able to recall them anytime they want? Because that’s how it was originally set up.
Not the real problem. The problem is that the courts will not police themselves — kinda like the Catholic church and priests that violate their vow to their Gawd.
Courts below the SCOTUS routinely disobey SCOTUS rulings. But, SCOTUS refuses to do anything to FORCE the courts to comply.
E.g., SCOTUS passes laws on 2nd amendment and state courts and/or Fed courts just ignore it. Disobedient courts should be dissolved.
“How about two thirds of the State Supreme Courts over-ruling the SCOTUS?”
It’s always bothered me that a small group of unelected people get to make the final decisions.
I would prefer the following...
1. that the Supremes not be allowed to pass judgements on laws passed by the Legislature and signed by the president. IOW, undo Marbury v Madison. And...
2. That laws can only be passed by supermajorities of both houses of congress.
The rational behind number 2 is a realization that every law passed is a restriction of freedom - it defines what you can’t do or what you must do. I’m not an advocate of unlimited freedom - that would be the law of the jungle. But I think there should be overwhelming public support (greater than a simple majority) before our freedom our curtailed by laws. And that overwhelming public support can be represented by supermajorities of congressmen.
Every state should also follow this rule.
This change would drastically reduce the number of laws passed each year that saddle us with more dos and don’t. It would change our system from simple majority rule to supermajority rule.
What do you think?