Yeah, there’s two problems with this.

1. Congress is non-functional and can’t act as a check on the executive branch or the courts. In the past they’ve passed fuck you laws where they initially passed a law saying X, the supreme court interpreted it to say Y and then they passed a clearer version of X. This hasn’t happened in a long time.
2. The supreme court likes to reinterpret the constitution. This means if you want to correct the supreme courts interpretation you have to pass a constitutional amendment. Even if Congress functioned properly this would be difficult.

The idea we’re talking about wouldn’t work anyway. The problem is, many of the state supreme court judges are also batshit.

The only way round this is to copy other countries that have functional judicial systems and stop making judges either political appointments or directly elected. They need to be professionals selected on merit, and firable, or at least replaceable after a term, if they’re incompetent.

My favorite was when Priti Patel suggested we should use wave machines to drown migrants trying to cross the channel.

The only problem was she was home secretary at the time, and actually in charge of the borders.

You’re never quite sure if mockery or horror is the right response.

"Because of my views - and they’re lawfully held views - they are missing out on this opportunity, and that’s the part that is absolutely galling.

And it’s also a lawfully held view for scope to think she’s so terrible that they want nothing to do with her.

Fucking coward. If your only justification for your views is that it’s “lawfully held” you need to admit to yourself that you’re a bad person.