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 literally say it yourself. Precedents are being revoked. This shouldn’t be possible by the same court. We have balance of powers for a reason, and it was pretty well decided on that things don’t get re-litigated, exactly to stop what is currently happening from happening. The Supreme Court was not meant to be used as a political weapon by the President and Congress, and yet that is exactly what is happening.
Why not? You are essentially arguing that the courts should always be bound by their first decision.
You don’t seem to understand what that means. The balance of powers doctrine is about ensuring that no one branch of government has too much power. A single branch changing its mind has nothing to do with that. In fact, all three branches do this all the time. Presidents can issue Executive Orders and those can (and regularly are) overridden by new Presidents. Congress passes laws regularly and it’s rather common for new Congresses to change those laws. It makes no sense to say that the Courts must always be bound by the first decision to be made and never update those decisions based on new information or a changing in society.
Have you read a history book? Things are re-litigated constantly. Something I specifically pointed out in my last comment.
Quite the opposite, really. Re-litigation of issues is one of the ways in which issues actually get changed. Let’s take something like Roe v. Wade. That was not the first time an abortion ban was in front of the Supreme Court. In fact, they had just decided US v. Vuitch. That case effectively rules that DC could enact a ban on abortion. Under your theory, Roe couldn’t have happened. We could also just jump all the way back to Cruickshank (which I mentioned before) and say that the restrictions on the Federal Government in the Bill of Rights (specifically the 1st and 2nd amendments) do not restrict State Governments.
Honestly, it sounds like your real complaint is that precedents you like or agree with are being overturned. And that sucks, but Supreme Court precedents have never crystalized US law in the past. On the upshot, they won’t in the future either. The actions of this Supreme Court will only last as long as the Justices continue to agree with the decisions being made. And that is likely to change eventually. It just takes time and hard political work.