And politicains aren't subject to the same foibles, along with the money? Nice set of blinders you've got there.
Not any more likely to happen than a simple majority of the Court, and much easier to fix. If such a law were to pass, it would certainly be a failure of everyone to serve their function in the public arena. An arena that is much more open than the decision making process of the Supreme Court.
Easier to fix how? Elect new represntatives taht will change the law? Who's going to elect them, the black people who now can't vote? Have you really considered all the consequences of what you're saying?
You submit that the people and a simple majority of their elected represntatives would never allow such a law to stand in defense of your own arguments, while imagining that a supermajority of the those same people and representatives would pass and amendment to the same effect in order to attack mine.
A Judicial - Legislative alliance or a Judicial - Executive alliance, would be just as bad would it not. Indeed this has happened. I'm less than satisfied that there are checks on a Supreme Court that is the only arbiter of the Constitution.
An Executive - Legislative alliance would be no better, and in the case of FDR and the New Deal Congress were able to bend the Court to their will. You can't seem to grasp that what you're asking for is an unlimited amount of what got us into this mess in the first place.
AND they have to gets votes. That's a huge field leveler. But I'm not blind to the messiness of making sausages.
I'm conceding that the facts as they now stand are that the SC is the a Super Branch of the government that has a veto power on all legislative laws and all executive actions.
So is the answer to just make sure "our guys" run things? It is most likely in today's environment that you'll either get legal drugs and illegal guns/speech/religion or legal guns/speech/religion and illegal drugs.
What's your best case scenario?