Quote:
Originally Posted by sfshooter
I do know that congress (yes, I underscore the capitalization on purpose) can have an over all vote to undo a Supreme Court decision (I think I have that right, if not please correct me). I just don't recall when that has ever happened. It seems our elected leaders think they are just as powerful as the Executive branch but fail to realize they are just as powerful as the Judicial branch.
|
You're right, doesn't seem to happen very often.
(Wait till the pendulum swings the other way in Congress however, as they don't seem to be getting more civil but more deranged.)
Strictly speaking, Congress doesn't actually vote (if they actually were to get around to it) to
undo a SCOTUS decision. What they would have to do is go back & craft legislation or an amendment to a piece of law that SCOTUS finds objectionable, that is consistent with the Constitution (which they often conveniently forget about). Majority opinions can run the gamut from "the law you (Congress) crafted is unconstitutional & here's why. If you want to keep going, go back & do better."
The other extreme is to let a terribly crafted piece of legislation go ahead (Pelosi: "We'll know what's in it after we pass it.") but then make a ruling when it's appealed as a justice as to "what you
think" Congress
meant to do when they passed the law. This is the so-called 'activist judge' & they exist on both sides of the political spectrum. (Example: How many were aghast when the Roberts court called the Individual Mandate in ObamaCare a "tax" rather than the extortion at gun point to buy a product that it was.) Another instance where (imo) SCOTUS often misses the boat is to conflate public rhetoric by an official - including emotion-based language of the appellant - with the actual language of an Executive Order balanced against the Constitution. Probably the most recent examples of that I can think of would be POTUS' immigration-related executive orders. Courts kept overturning the orders because they allow too much influence of what was said by then-Candidate Trump, rather than the actual 'meat' and legal standing supporting an EO. (And the Constitution gives wide latitude to the Chief Executive to do his job of "protect & defend" etc.)