A Discussion Of An Amendment For A Congressional Override Of Judicial Decisions

Wicopedia states that Robert Bork desires a Constitutional Amendment that would allow a supermajority of Congress to overcome a Supreme Court Ruling. If this is so he is obviously basing this ideal on the ability of the President to keep Congress legislative power in check as is indicated by the following passage from Article 1 of the Constitution.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

I see no reason why such is even necessary as the Constitution already gives the Senate the ability to impeach sitting judges for perjury if two thirds concur. The Constitution does not grant judges immunity for crimes committed in making their decisions and therefore they do not have it. On the other hand the Constitution does grant The Senate the power to end their term of office as it places the term duration of during good behavior on federal judges. It is also obvious that if a judge violating their constitutional oath of office they are not exhibiting good behavior.