Unanimity is required for U.S. courts to strike down laws as unconstitutional

You know, you don't come off that great telling a lawyer who's read a fair bit about the US (and legal) history to go check an introduction to the Constitution website.
What is your deal?! Seriously, is your intent to always find where I have commented and be a dick? And if you're a lawyer im the Pope.
 
I don't think any country has ever required unanimity for any high court decisions. When countries want to restrain their courts from striking down laws, they use something similar to Canada's "notwithstanding" clause.

Can you please elaborate on the Canada part here?
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Basically, the legislation has to admit that it's against the rules, but they're going to pass it anyway. Québec used it for their language laws, for instance.
 
What if, rather than a simple majority vote, unanimity was required for U.S. courts to strike down laws as unconstitutional?

For the record, such a proposal, if implemented, would be closer to what Alexander Hamilton had in mind when he said that there needs to be an "irreconcilable variance" (Federalist Paper No. 78) for U.S. courts/judges to strike down laws as being unconstitutional.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Unanimous decision would likely be closer to the "irreconcilable variance" idea, but is a very high bar to set. Perhaps a 'happy medium' would be requiring a 2/3 majority to overturn a law or lower court ruling. So, with 6 justices you'd need 4, with 9, you'd need 6. That would keep a lot of SCOTUS decisions but also throw out a lot, including some controversial ones
 
Top