I think there is a common misconception here, that the Supreme Court is in some way supreme in the structure of goverment.

The judicial branch falls under the authority of the legislative branch (Atricle 3, section 1) which is why judges are appointed by the executive branch with the "advice and consent" of the legislative branch.

Furthermore, the lewis bill requires a two thirds vote to overturn any such decision which is far more democratic than the actions of the unelected judicial branch.

Lincoln once said:
"The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

The purpose of the courts has always been to interpret federal law, not to create it. In the modern era of judicial interpretation, there has been a seismic shift in the absolute power of judges to virtually invent law, even so far as the recent case where the Mass court told the legislature to pass a new law making gay marriage legal.

Hey, I support gay marriage but I do not support constitutional subversion in the form of a judiciary inventing law. I am not alone on this, Madison wrote about such potential issues in the Federalist papers and Jefferson spoke on it saying "It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.." he went un to say it would be despotic.

When the important social issues of the day are removed from the hands of the electorate, we as a people lose our power. The sad truth is that our courts and more specifically our judges have become bastians of policitical ideology, it is sad that we speak of the supreme court in terms of a liberal judge and a conservative judge. Can we not find 9 people in this country who are smart and objective? There is nothing in the law that says they have to be lawyers, 9 people is all we are looking for, politically unbiased and true to their jobs as outlined by the founding fathers.

The courts should be like the constitution, neither liberal or conservative, and the question should be will be have government by and for the people or will we have government by the judges?

I am not a lawyer, but I did take a moment to read Article 1, Section 1, and I can find no support for your contention that "[t]he judicial branch falls under the authority of the legislative branch". The article says: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The article here gives Congress the right to "ordain and establish" some "inferior courts", without defining these specifically. The Supreme Court itself, on the other hand, has been ordained and established by the Constitution. Only an ammendment to the Constitution can change this.

So, I don't see in what sense the Supreme Court "falls under the authority" of Congress. Justices are, as you point out, nominated by the Executive and confirmed by the Legislative. After that exercise in balance-of-power, they're on their own. In fact, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power only to "constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court". In my opinion, any hearing by Congress to review the decisions of the Supreme Court would constitute a tribunal SUPERIOR to the Court and would thus exceed the authority granted to Congress by the Constitution. So, as Chuck said, this bill is likely unconstitutional and could only be enacted after an ammentment of the Constitution -- one which would push our entire system of government into a death spiral.

Many writers have expressed their opinions in many ways, but few of those opinions wielded the power necessary to modify the Constitution. The opinions of Lincoln or Madison carry no more weight than yours or mine, except to the extent that they are embodied in law.

And, finally, I do not agree that the courts are inventing law by pointing out that laws must be applied absolutely equally. US legal history is one tending toward inclusiveness. Many times the courts have found it necessary to point out that our arbitrary definitions, if not codified in a law, are meaningless before the law. The debate today about the meaning of "marriage" is just an echo of our past debates about the meaning of "man".