zlacker

That's not how this works. Laws can absolutely be changed; in the case of a SCOTUS decision, that's what constitutional amendments are for.

>>stonog+(OP)
Only required if SCOTUS’s opinion is on a constitutional matter, like 1st amendment rights.

If SCOTUS writes an opinion on a law like DMCA and then the legislature repeals the DMCA, it doesn’t much matter how SCOTUS interprets it because it’s not a law anymore.

>>stonog+(OP)
As you may have noticed, whether by design or social context or both, constitutional amendments are essentially impossible to pass.

>>PaulDa+Pc
What I've noticed is that we have nearly thirty of them, and two of them were passed in my lifetime.

>>stonog+3q
The timeline looks like this:

http://www.paufler.net/brettrants/161_amendments_graphs.html

I wouldn't consider that indicative of the ease of passing an amendment. Perhaps you do. It appears to require an increasingly-hard-to-get combination of (1) widespread agreement that a problem requiring an amendment exists and (2) widespread agreement on what the nature of the amendment should be.