Several commenters and Scott Lemieux have convinced me that contrary to what I said here it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment to impose some kind of supermajority requirement on Supreme Court decisions.

UPDATE: Of course at the end of the day this would need to be litigated. In principle, the Court could vote 5-4 to strike the law down which would create awesome legal paradoxes.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.