...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.
They have Only exercised this option ONCE in the History of the Republic, and it’s high time to use it again.
Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!
______________________________________________________
Congress can decide which cases the lower courts can hear. If a case is heard in a lower court then it can be appealed until there is a law which says otherwise, there is no law. There never will be a law that denies the Supreme Court appeal rights.
The only place to stop it is in the lower courts. It would be easy for congress to take away their jurisdiction. Even then I would not be surprised to see the Supreme Court take a case they had no right to take and declare they do, then what do you do. Ever since Marshall decided that it was the final arbitrator of what is and isn't Constitutional they have made themselves the most powerful of the three branches of government.
Like I said, they did it ONCE before, and they can and should do it again:
http://www.casebriefsummary.com/ex-parte-mccardle/
Whether the Supreme Court has the authority to hear the appeal.
Whether Defendant’s imprisonment violates the Constitution.
Holding:
No, not in the instant case because Congress had the authority to withdraw the court’s ability to review the appeal. Regardless of whether or not the Reconstruction Acts had been passed, Congress had jurisdiction to hear the appeal granted by the Constitution under Article III. Article III, Section II of the Constitution states that the Congress can make exceptions to the Supreme Courts right of appeal. Therefore, Congress correctly repealed by way of the exception powers granted by the Constitution. The opinion further noted that the repeal of jurisdiction only impacts rulings going forward and cannot apply retroactively. As such, the instant case is correctly halted and McCardle does not have a legitimate avenue for appeal.
The further stated, “its jurisdiction, and this affirmative description has been understood to imply a negation of the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it.” In other words, where Congress gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over an act, it necessarily implies lack of jurisdiction over other matters. The complete repeal of appellate jurisdiction by Congress, squarely represents Congress’s right of exception under the Constitution.
Not answered. Because the Court does not have jurisdiction, it cannot judge whether Defendant’s imprisonment violate the Constitution where the question has no jurisdiction.