Limiting the jurisdiction of the Court here would not have helped. The problem with Obamacare is not that the Court ran roughshod over Congress. The problem is that the Court refused to overturn Congress (i.e., the Court was too restrained, to put it one way). Limiting the Court’s discretion would have accomplished nothing.

I don't agree. How? If Congress says, "We are restraining thd SC from hearing this case under A3 S2," it's a done deal.

(What we need is a "Just Read The Damn Constitution" party. It's is written in plain English, not Sanskrit!)

Article 3, Section 2: In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

In 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:

“You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”