Since the Supreme Court almost always rules in favor of government to the detriment of the public, should congress be allowed to overrule the court?

[Kelley1]

Checking the Court: What Can Be Done to Rein in the Supreme Court...

Reining in the supreme court will require amending the constitution. Regardless, there is a very cozy relationship between congress and the supreme court. Congress approves judges that rule in their favor. Examples are:

The people demanded term limits. Reluctantly congress passed term limit. However, the supreme court voided term limits.

Because money is used to bribe members of congress, the people demanded limits to election donation. However, for the benefit of congress, the supreme court in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment right to free speech prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

[abc3643]

1. This:
"Since the Supreme Court almost always rules in favor of government to the detriment of the public"
is false. In fact, for much of this term, it was more like this:
"The Supreme Court almost always rules against the government to the detriment of the public."

2. No. Marbury vs Madison clarified that the SCOTUS is ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality.

3. No, it doesn't need to. That's why there is and impeachment/removal from office process already.

4. No, it doesn't need to. This is why there is a Constitutional Amendment process already.

[Kelley1]

Over time the Supreme Court has shredded the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the recent SCOTUS decision on Gun Rights Is the Proverbial ‘Camel’s Nose.’ In United States v. Rahimi, which allows for the ban of certain firearms and limited magazine capacities in certain jurisdictions, allows leftists to take a victory lap and salivate at the possibilities of nuanced, back-door legislation.

[abc3643]

No, that was a good decision regarding gun rights and it was an 8-1 decision with only Thomas dissenting but he would dissent because he's a robot.
In a nutshell, it could be summarized like this:

Gun rights (as all rights) come with personal responsibility, but for those rights to be removed __temporarily__, that removal must be through due process (in this case, through a court which makes it tougher to remove rights).

The guy who was the focus of this case was a real bad guy - the exact kind of guy you don't want to have a gun. You can read about it at the beginning in Part IA of Chief Justice Robert's opinion.

www.scotusblog.com/.../

United States v. Rahimi
Docket No. : 22-915
Op. Below: : 5th Cir.
Argument : Nov 7, 2023
Opinion : Jun 21, 2024
Vote : 8-1
Author : Roberts
Term : OT 2023

Holding: When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 21, 2024. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson filed concurring opinions. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

www.supremecourt.gov/.../22-915_8o6b.pdf

[DrPepper12]

Our constitution is a suicide pact. Its designed for paralysis. It can't end well.

[Surely]

If whatever the current administration’s ideals are. And that administration can change the SCOTUS to suit their agenda. It would weaken the Supreme Court. Tear up the Constitution. Be the beginning of one party rule! The end of Democracy as it stands!

[Juxtapose]

What the heck are you talking about? The Supreme Court is the only thing holding this country together by a thread. Without them the kangaroo courts would have eaten Trump alive!

[standardguy]

The judicative must not be overruled by the legislative. If ut would be there would be no check and balance any more.

[ChinaGrove]

"The people demanded term limits. Reluctantly congress passed term limit. However, the supreme court voided term limits."

I find that hard to believe.

[Kelley1]

Senators and Representatives from 23 states faced term limits from 1990 to 1995, when the U. S. Supreme Court declared the practice unconstitutional with its decision in the case of U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton.

In a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court ruled that the states could not impose congressional term limits because the Constitution simply did not grant them the power to do so.

[Pterodon]

Nope I think SCOTUS is just fine the way it is