I'm not saying I think judicial decisions should be immortalized for all time. Society's understanding of morality changes over time, and government needs provisions to adapt.

But separation of powers exists for a reason. If the Supreme Court throws out a bill and Congress immediately passes a new bill that says "everything before, and the judicial branch can't throw it out," that's not ok. The amendment process is a compromise. It seeks to allow changes to prior law and judicial precedent without giving the legislative branch overt power to disregard the judicial. The presumption is that anything capable of garnering 2/3 majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as approval of 3/4 of state legislatures, probably represents a fundamental shift in society, and ought be permitted to overrule prior law and precedent.

I realize I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know. My point is, I understand government needs the ability to adapt to societal changes; but no one government branch should have the power to completely disregard another.

I actually think the amendment process is pretty reasonable. What I don't think is reasonable, is for any legislator to vote for something which explicitly overrides the judicial branch, which they know doesn't have overwhelming societal or legislative support. Most certainly not something which prohibits future judicial intercession. They might as well have said "I believe in autocracy." Or perhaps, "When a legislator does it, that means it's not illegal."