Legislative override of SCOTUS

Based on the forfeit, I debated whether I would just wait for your arguments or add extra ones. But you have bragged to me about how well you can defend this case all year. So I am going to add some of my own arguments on so you have more to respond too. Also I feel like if you forfeit you have to deal with something like that happening. So without further ado.1. Congress and the President have the ability to check the Supreme Court.According to US History.org, "The president and Congress have some control of the judiciary with their power to appoint and confirm appointments of judges and justices. Congress also may impeach judges (only seven have actually been removed from office), alter the organization of the federal court system, and amend the Constitution. Congress can also get around a court ruling by passing a slightly different law than one previously declared unconstitutional. Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it. For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision." http://www.ushistory.org... A long quote, that in summary is saying the checks are a) nomination, b) passing a new law that does effectively the same thing as the law that SCOTUS struck down, c) Ignoring SCOTUS rulings leads to no enforcement. All of these actually have happened, have been used, and therefore cannot be ruled out as options for checking the Supreme Court.Checks do exist, so why do we need a new one? It cannot be just because you say so.2. A majority of the states/Congress is a rare thing to achieve.Many states differ in their diversity, laws, and social issues. So it should not be a surprise that Texas thinks different than Vermont. In many respects, this presents a difficult problem for your proposed plan. Your plan is to "provide for a legislative override of a Supreme Court decision by either a three-fifths vote of both houses of Congress, or by a three-fifths vote of the State Legislatures." Now to achieve a 3/5th majority of the states, that means almost 60% of the states need to agree that a SCOTUS decision is unconstitutional. That is 30 states out of the 50 in the US. So in a large respect, a three-fifths requirement is very stalling to the progress you wish to achieve. Congress is not better however. Congress is so politically polarised these days that budgets are becoming difficult to pass. "When asked about the most important problem facing the United States today, Americans rank dissatisfaction with government over ISIS and race relations. American trust in Congress is at an all-time low; citizens hold it in lower esteem than even big business or the criminal justice system. Despite the existence of problems at myriad levels of government, cynicism toward government has risen as the two parties have proven unable to confront the nation’s core policy challenges. In comparative surveys of polarization, Americans report far greater distance between the Republican and Democratic parties than citizens in other countries, such as France and Greece, report between their leftmost and rightmost parties." http://www.the-american-interest.com... We just do not agree as a nation. Congress is no exception to that.Now I know that you will respond that your plan should never have to be used because that would mean that SCOTUS is not abusing its power. I want to stall this response right now, by pointing out that implementing an extra power option that is not necessary is the definition of overreach of government, the very thing you are trying to avoid. So don't be hypocritical in your response.3. Balance of Power is ruined with this plan.This is essentially a response to the theoretical of your second Advantage. You are arguing that "Our plan returns the court to its proper role. It restores legislative power". Now there might not be an issue with the idea. But you are not actually restoring the balance of power. This is because the balance of power has not been lost.When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it is considered the law of the land. Consider this however. States can always disobey a Supreme Court ruling. Several of them have disobeyed the rulings on Obamacare as of late. Also, the President can always ignore a SCOTUS decision if he feels it convenient to his purpose. Andrew Jackson did this in the Trail of Tears incident. Now, ignoring a decision is important to understanding the power balance.Criminal Justice is defined as "the system of law enforcement, involving police, lawyers, courts, and corrections, used for all stages of criminal proceedings and punishment." http://www.dictionary.com... It is important to understand this as a symbiotic relationship, that when one part of the system fails the others, the whole system suffers. So if the police, lawyers, corrections, law enforcement, and higher government decided to ignore the courts, then the courts would fail. This is why the SCOTUS really has power only at the mercy of two things. A) the federal government's need for laws and order, and B) The federal government's respect for law and order. If either of these were to dissipate, then the SCOTUS would be powerless.With these arguments, I await your response.