As much as I loathe Citizens United, that's not how separation of powers works. Yes, SCOTUS is depraved. No, that doesn't mean the legislative branch can pass laws saying "the judicial branch doesn't apply to us anymore."It would also prohibit the Supreme Court from reversing any future campaign finance legislation passed by Congress.
McConnell said the vote was a political stunt by Democrats ahead of the midterm elections
I agree. Take out the judicial prohibition nonsense and I'd support it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, even if Hell froze over and the GOP had to move their winter homes back to Texas, it still wouldn't pass the House. Tangentially, I'm going to be very depressed if Udall loses his election. He's one of the only Senators who had the balls to actively oppose NSA treason mass surveillance. Every other YouTube ad I hear is mudslinging him.
Yes it does. It is within Congress' power to introduce amendments, which override any previous constitutional interpretation by the Court. The Court gets to interpret the Constitution; Congress gets to change it. Congress reacts to Court decisions all the time, but usually on statutory interpretations. On statutory interpretations, they are free to pass a new law. On constitutional interpretations this is how it is done. The legislative branch is the ultimate authority of government. They have all the power, if they want to work together.As much as I loathe Citizens United, that's not how separation of powers works. Yes, SCOTUS is depraved. No, that doesn't mean the legislative branch can pass laws saying "the judicial branch doesn't apply to us anymore."
I'm not saying I think judicial decisions should be immortalized for all time. Society's understanding of morality changes over time, and government needs provisions to adapt. But separation of powers exists for a reason. If the Supreme Court throws out a bill and Congress immediately passes a new bill that says "everything before, and the judicial branch can't throw it out," that's not ok. The amendment process is a compromise. It seeks to allow changes to prior law and judicial precedent without giving the legislative branch overt power to disregard the judicial. The presumption is that anything capable of garnering 2/3 majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as approval of 3/4 of state legislatures, probably represents a fundamental shift in society, and ought be permitted to overrule prior law and precedent. I realize I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know. My point is, I understand government needs the ability to adapt to societal changes; but no one government branch should have the power to completely disregard another. I actually think the amendment process is pretty reasonable. What I don't think is reasonable, is for any legislator to vote for something which explicitly overrides the judicial branch, which they know doesn't have overwhelming societal or legislative support. Most certainly not something which prohibits future judicial intercession. They might as well have said "I believe in autocracy." Or perhaps, "When a legislator does it, that means it's not illegal."
Let me introduce you to your nation: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"doesn't mean the legislative branch can pass laws saying "the judicial branch doesn't apply to us anymore."