Advocates of the proposed legislation point out that even when Democrats had firm control of Capitol Hill, the legislative branch of government refused to enact pro-busing, pro-abortion and pro-affirmative action legislation, mainly because of a fear of public opinion.

It was at that point that the Supreme Court stepped in and, in effect, assumed the unconstitutional powers of a super-legislature by interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to bend the meaning of that document to suit the purposes of the lifetime appointees of that body.

Moreover, advocates also point out that Lewis’ bill would require a two-thirds vote, enough to discourage any rash or indiscriminate attempts to nullify court rulings.

But it's possible the bill is not necessary to achieve the aims of the authors.

Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, says Congress already has that power.

"By a simple majority vote in both Houses," he writes, "Congress under Article 111, Section 2 can curtail the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. In other words, Congress could by a majority vote tell the court it may not rule, say, on abortion [or same-sex marriage]."

Beichman, author of "Anti-American Myths: Their Causes and Consequences," cites the following words in the Constitution:

"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and to fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Beichman cites icons of America’s past (Alexander Hamilton and Louis Brandeis) to make his case that the framers of the Constitution intended to give Congress the authority to rein in a "runaway judiciary."

Lewis’ bill goes a step beyond any authority Congress already has. He would enable two-thirds of the lawmakers to override individual court decisions, not just order the justices to stay out of certain general areas.

It is not just same-sex marriage that is winning co-sponsors for the Kentucky lawmaker’s bill.

Six U.S. Supreme Court justices have said the court will likely rely on international courts to arrive at future decisions.

The idea that American judges would bow to the authority of foreign judges - i.e., those not appointed or vetted by their own elected officials - has caused nothing short of alarm among many court watchers and constitutional scholars.

Thus the Lewis bill is not dismissed as lightly as it would have been just a few short months ago.

What if some foreign court rules that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a denial of "international law"?

In the final analysis, however, the congressman’s bill is — in Beichman’s words — "about as hopeless as the fate of Sisyphus; doomed for eternity to roll up a steep hill a huge stone that tumbles back down when he reaches the top. Then the whole process starts once more."

Among Lewis’ co-sponsors are Reps. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; Richard Pombo, R-Calif.; Terry Everett, R-Ala.; Howard Coble, R-N.C.; Mac Collins, R-Ga.; Virgil Goode, R-Va.; Joseph R. Pitts, R-Pa.; Joel Hefley, R-Colo.; and John Doolittle, R-Calif.

Editor's note: