[jwalsh07]

There is a difference between democrats voting for an Amendment and voting to impeach judges for cause. One's not gonna happen, the other, if DOMA, is any indication just might.

There are other methods to be employed by Congress if they so choose. They have article 3 powers to simply tell SCOTUS to keep their hands off certain issues. That would be doable, impeachment is not going to happen, the politics are too thorny.

[inquest]

Whoever would vote for the amendment - D or R - needs to be put right on the spot: "Why are you voting for this amendment?" Is it because he actually believes that the Constitution truly does, as the judges said, protect gay marriage? If the answer's yes, then he should be laughed out of town. Is it then because he believes that the judges made a glaringly awful ruling? If yes, then we should demand to know why he's not voting to impeach. If the ruling is so bad that he feels the need to amend the Constitution to correct it, how can he let the judges face no consequences for their arrogance?

[inquest]

I forgot to comment on the second half of your post. I have no objection to reining in the power of federal courts under Article III, but we shouldn't be surprised if they deem that unconstitutional. There may even be some justification for that, since Article III grants jurisdiction to federal courts "in all cases" arising under the laws, treaties, and Constitution. I've heard constitutional lawyers advance that argument, the theory being that while Congress may withhold jurisdiction from particular courts, even the supreme, jurisdiction must be exercised by some federal court. I'm a bit skeptical of it myself, but in any case, if the courts rule that way, we'd be right back where we started.