The rule of law would then become a political toy. Because the makeup of the Court enables us to predict the likely outcome of cases, presidential candidates would promise to veto upcoming decisions thought to be contrary to their party's political agenda. I don't think justices should (or would) change their interpretation of the law in order to override a veto. If they did, they'd be sacrificing any claim to objectivity or respect for the law. A SCOTUS decision cannot be subjected to political pressure. It would destroy our system of justice. It is not a workable system, IMHO.
Imagine the consequences of a SCOTUS decison that ruled ObamaCare to be unconstitutional. Obama vetoes it. The matter is sent to a Congress where both houses are controlled by Dems. Congress overrules the SCOTUS decision. ObamaCare becomes unconstitutional law by political fiat. No thanks!
The SCOTUS must be the final interpreter of the law. They must have the ability to send unconstitutional legislation back to the drawing board or to the grave.
Gotta ping you to this discussion. See #3. Can you imagine a presidential veto of SCOTUS decisions?
If even no propensity had ever discovered itself in the Legislative body to invade the rights of the Executive, the rules of just reasoning and theoretic propriety would of themselves teach us that the one ought not to be left to the mercy of the other, but ought to possess a constitutional and effectual power of self defense.
From his birth on that tiny island of Nevis and his studies that took him from poverty to the pinnacle of political life, Hamilton had learned well the lessons of people and their abuse of power.
OK, time to read on....