Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?
I'm being as polite as a can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.
And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.
Oh, I didn't think you were being impolite. I don't know what the courts would do, I don't know how much the case would be entitled to respect under the stari decisis concept, but I will say that it is possible.
Why the hell wouldn't it? Seriously.
There's a downright thugish element to such logic, that picking up a supreme court seat to reverse a law is no different than winning an open senate seat to reverse a law. It utterly and absolutely ignores the differing role of the judicial branch.
Though liberals can be said to feel the same way towards close conservative decisions like Citizens United.
