3 ms·

What I mean is, they are proposing a law that contradicts a supreme court ruling, which seems unconstitutional

• rolltiide 7y ago
  I see what you are saying, but it isn't so binary. If the Supreme Court ruled against the merits of a specific law that Congress passed, then sure Congress could not make another law to overrule it (well it would be immediately stayed by the courts). Here the Supreme Court ruled against an OUTCOME of a law that doesn't exist. They ruled against interpretations of a patchwork of nuanced regulations which never had any legislative guidance, which resulted in the aggrieved party not being able to enforce their gene patent alongside the patent examiners not approving any more of them. Congress is now ending this mess by providing that missing legislative guidance.
• Retra 7y ago
  The constitution provides a framework for this contradiction. + Congress has the power to propose law. + The court has the 'checking' power to rule on the law. + Congress has the 'checking' power to change the law to invalidate that ruling. + The court has the 'checking' power to rule a law unconstitutional. + Congress has the 'checking' power to change the constitution to invalidate that ruling. Congress always has the power to override the court.
  • rolltiide 7y ago
    re-reading this whole thread, and the ways that multiple other people already explained it including myself, I don't think grandparent OP is going to get it.
• UncleEntity 7y ago
  > they are proposing a law that contradicts a supreme court ruling They are proposing a law that directly addresses a Supreme Court interpretation of existing law. Happens often, Supreme Court says law X doesn't mean Y and if you want it to mean that then rewrite it to say so.