When the Supreme Court (or any judge, for that matter) rules that a piece of legislation to be unconstitutional, many conservatives lash out at the offending judge, justice, or Court. Attempted slurs such as "judicial activism" are the most common manifestation of this sentiment. Some Republicans even stated that this salacious activity is a cause of violence against judges.

But, when Republicans in Congress don't agree with a (16 year old) Supreme Court decision, they simply propose a constitutional amendment.

What strikes me as most disturbing about this episode is not the subject matter but rather the fact that this particular decision is so limited in scope and effect. This is not an expansion of civil rights doctrine nor a constriction of long-held understanding of federalism. Rather, Texas v. Johnson served to address a very limited constitutional question. Opponents of the decision should listen to their own rhetoric and "look to the Framers." The Framers designed the judiciary for this very purpose: to interpret the Constitution and, as a result of judicial review, to do so as needed to evaluate enacted legislation.

Further reading: History of flag burning; LAT article

UPDATE: WaPo reports the passage of the aforementioned legislation. Roll call vote.

It is interesting to note (as the WaPo does) that the measure -- requiring 2/3 majority -- passed with only an 8 vote margin. Of note, there were 18 Members who did not vote: 8 Democrats, 10 Republicans. If all 8 of the non-voting Democrats had voted and all other votes remained unchanged, the margin would have been 2 votes, but not a reversal of the outcome. The bill now moves to the Senate where 67 votes are needed for passage; followed by ratification by 38 states.
- posted by C @ 4:31:00 PM