[nathanbedford]

You are quite right, Congress has the power to bring the Supreme Court and inferior courts to heel simply by withdrawing jurisdiction. The fact that this remedy has seldom if ever been resorted to by Congress tells us why we have submitted to a kind of judicial oligarchy. This constitutionally afforded remedy as not been invoked partly because Congress wants to be relieved of the responsibility to make these decisions. The left knows that it will win most of the issues and the right knows that it will have something to complain about at election time.

That is why I favor a solution with two components: first, it must be a solution fully capable of being invoked outside of Washington; second, it should be self effectuating, in other words, some sort of binary action must occur, some entity or other must review the Supreme Court's decision up or down. If it is Congress, blustering politicians would at least be compelled to cast actual votes on the record which is of some marginal value. If it is a review by states requiring, for example, 3/5 to overturn a Supreme Court ruling, it would take the matter out of Washington. But will the state be compelled to vote? Would Congress?

How much value there would be in such a constitutional amendment merely by compelling justices to look over their shoulders is difficult to know in advance. We are seeking structural remedies that cannot easily be evaded by a political class which has made evasion an art form. Yet, history has emphatically taught us that seeking remedies at the ballot box under the existing system will simply avail nothing. Seeking more of the same over and over is not working. If we could energize the electorate to discipline congressmen who fail to control federal court jurisdiction we would not need such an amendment but we simply can't.

[Hostage]

> “You are quite right, Congress has the power to bring the Supreme Court and inferior courts to heel simply by withdrawing jurisdiction. The fact that this remedy has seldom if ever been resorted to by Congress tells us why we have submitted to a kind of judicial oligarchy. This constitutionally afforded remedy as not been invoked partly because Congress wants to be relieved of the responsibility to make these decisions. “

I think we may be going off on a tangent that is not realistic or feasible. Congress may withdraw jurisdiction not by decree but by managing appropriations. I do not believe there is any direct power by Congress to establish jurisdiction by decree. The Constitution expressly uses the term ‘regulation’ which stems from law and creating law is a process that involved both legislative and executive branches. I’ve never seen Congress make regulations by direct decree. I’ve seen resolutions but these are not binding on other branches unless as motions they are introduced in legislation that moves and completes as law. That’s not to say that resolutions cannot be influential; they may in fact compel other branches and agencies to initiate conforming policies of their own accord.

As all appropriations involve revenue, necessarily the revenue bills must originate in the House, pass the Senate and be signed by the President. This is how FDR was able to get the Supreme Court to back down when threatened with expanding their membership with persons that were sympathetic to his agenda (stacking the court).

Part of the reason I am a strong supporter of Ted Cruz is because he and his staff do the necessary work to introduce legislation independent of conditions of success but rather based on principle. Given that Ted Cruz knows the Constitution practically better than any living human being, it would be expected that he would call on Congress, in this case the House. to introduce amendments to appropriations or he would attach riders or file Senate amendments to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. But in any case the legislation would ultimately need to be signed by the President. So it seems as a non-starter although I would not be surprised to see such action be taken on principle alone.

When we see a President Cruz, then a movement for limiting federal court jurisdiction may become a reality as he may impel Congress to move in that direction and send him a bill.