When Federal Laws Are Struck Down by the Supreme Court, They Should Be Wiped From the Books.

For example, The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed by Congress in 1996.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).

But if SCOTUS reverses itself, as Justice Clarence Thomas wants the Court to do, DOMA would be back in effect.

The way to end future yo-yos with the law that SCOTUS causes when it reverses itself would be for Congress to pass a law that states any federal law struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional is to be stricken. Meaning that the law would have to be re-written as a new law and passed again by Congress if SCOTUS reverses itself.

This would help insure that unpopular SCOTUS decisions wouldn't immediately cause mass disruptions in civil society. If a such decision is a popular one then Congress shouldn't have a problem with re-passing the previously struck down legislation, right?

States should do the same. For Michigan to now raise a 1931 abortion ban law from the dead is insane. In view of SCOTUS' repeal of Roe, they should have to try to pass a new ban instead of relying on a bill that was passed before the vast maajority of Americans were even born.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Cynthia · F

This is an interesting argument, but you focus too narrowly on SCOTUS and a couple of recent decisions which, although unpopular, did actually seem to reflect the Constitutional situation rather than the understandable wishes of many to move on from the thinking of 1789.

(I am not here to argue about that! You certainly have a much greater understanding than I do, and - with respect - I suspect the nine justices of the Supreme Court have a rather deeper understanding than you do. )

My contention is that all legislation should have a form of sunset clause. It is, as you say, ridiculous that Michigan should reach for a 1931 law, unamended. So that, for example, at least once in every (say) twenty years, any and every piece of legislation should be subject to review by the legislature that enacted it. There should be three basic options: renew without change: revise and resubmit to legislature for approval; or declared otiose and repealed. Technically there would be other options, such as merging with other legislation, but again subject to legislative approval.

Of course, this would require to be legislated in itself, And I am making book on the chances of such legislation ever being enacted. I'll give you 1000 to 1.

Here's a final comforting thought. One day, there will again be a progressive majority on SCOTUS. Then the other side can have the angst and despair for a few years.

BackyardShaman · 61-69, M

“Other Side”, the Supreme Court by design is not intended to be a partisan attack on society that does not agree with the biased majority of SCOTUS. They are legislating from the bench, a big no no. @Cynthia

LamontCranston · M

@Cynthia Very well articulated.

Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M

The definition of insanity says you just keep doing the same thing hoping for a different result so I guess it means our government and it's ordinances are insane.

BackyardShaman · 61-69, M

This could work, I know something needs to be done to counter abuse by SCOTUS.

SomeMichGuy · M

I like this!

kentex35 · 100+, M

🤔👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

Add a comment...