The judicial supremacy represents the product of the idea that constitutional courts have a final say in constitutional interpretation, despite its democratic deficit. Within this debate, we selected arguments that challenge the constitutional interpretation monopoly by courts. That arrangement includes parliaments by means of constitutional amendments when they are reversing constitutional court rulings. However, the description of this decision-making process does not contain any normative ought on the content of constitutional rights. In order to solve it, the principle of non-regression is used as an instrument to keep fundamental rights immune to reforms. Therefore, we propose to discuss that principle in order to demonstrate its implicit effect, specifically, the problem that seeks to equate in an anticipated and calculated way the technological productive forces of progress with the legal and social relations of production and reproduction.