[Jim Noble]

I think it's a start.

If the Constitution is to be amended, the Amendment should fix the problem permanently.

Your proposal is not self-interpreting. In most cases of judicial lawmaking, there is no record of original intent that is probative.

And if the judges ignore what you and I consider to be original intent, who or what can correct them?

I am inclined toward a fixed, non-renewable term for Federal judges and Justices of the USSC, and a supermajority Congressional veto for court decisions that have the effect of changing the law.

[Congressman Billybob]

There are instances of the Supreme Court being bound by interpretation rules, even in mere statutes. In the Black Lung Benefits Act, Congress specified that the responsibility for costs for a miner who developed that disease would be presumed by any court as being caused by his employment in the mines and would be proportional among the mine owners based on the number of years worked for each employer.

Mine owners challenged this law on the grounds that it invaded the province of the courts to determine the facts of a case and was therefore unconstitutional as a violation of separation of powers. The Court found that this was a reasonable conclusion given the problem of black lung disease, which builds up over the decades and becomes explicit only late in life.

So, if the Court was willing, in certain circumstances, to obey an interpretation rule in a mere law, all but the most blind and stubborn judges/Justices should obey one that is placed in the Constitution itself. (When I refer to blind and stubborn, why is it that the name Ruth Bader Ginsburg comes to mind?)

There is good reason to think that this would work, IF it was in the Constitution. I agree that judges/Justices would try to get out from under the provision IF it was only in a statute.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Please do it now.