Going entirely from admittedly memory and understanding, but aren't the judicial review standards of "strict scrutiny", "intermediate", "rational basis," and all that more or less made up out of the air by SCOTUS? If so, is Louisiana's amendment the first time they've had a direct constitutional basis?

So what's to keep the LA courts from re-defining "strict scrutiny" as something else (and presumably much, much weaker)?

Diomed: because that would dynamite a bunch of previous decisions.

Also grounds for impeachment or electoral lost (I assume the latter applies in the state); these words of art have a very specific meaning, but if your judges are corrupt it doesn't matter what your Constitution says anyway, does it?

And bringing down the hammer on a judge can have a powerful effect: Virginia's final "and this time we mean it!" shall issue law was underlined by the legislature removing from office the judge who played political games with Oliver North's concealed carry permit (it's done by the judicial system in that state). The recalcitrant judges in Northern Virginia and the Virginia Beach area took the hint....

Before the election I hoped for something like this in California, but now with the raw and unbridled Left Democrats in control of BOTH State houses and holding a super majority, there is little hope left either for fiscal, legal, or social sanity…