[ZULU]

"Overturning judicial decisions isn't."

That would obviously require a Constitutional Amendment.

I think the collective judgement of several hundred elected officials, many of them attorneys themselves, is in many cases just as valid as that of the Supreme Court.

Securing the assent of Congress to review a Supreme Court decision would not be an easy matter, and in highly controversial cases, one which Congress would in all likelihood be more than willing to leave to the judgement of an unelected body.

The only impetus for such a review by Congress in the first place would be a major outpouring of public opinion against a Supreme Court decision.

And securing a 2/3rd majority of Congress on a subject, would, in all likelihood, require bipartisan support.

But it would at the same time provide an avenue to address any egregiously unconstitutional decisions by the Supremes.

I think we have a major problem with activist judicial opinions by the Supremes - especially when we have cases of some of these justices blatantly stating they should defer to foreign law practise in rendering decisions involving the interpretation of the American Constitution.

[Borges]

Legislative overturn of judicial decisions came up at the Constitutional Convention and was voted down by the Founding Fathers. It's too much power for them in my opinion. The L branch federally and locally can always amend the USSC...especially if there is the sort of support you mention. Otherwise it would give the Federal goverment the power to do whatever they want Constitutional or not.