[Phlyer]

It can also put limits on it by restricting the subjects that the courts have jurisdiction over.

Agree completely. This is clearly part of the power to 'ordain' a court. They could, for example, decide that all civil cases would be tried in one 'branch' of courts, while all criminal cases could be tried in another.

To get back to the topic of the original posting, though, a lot of that was based on review of the court decisions by Congress, with the possible end of overturning the decisions. That is part of a post-decision review, not part of setting up the courts in the first place, which is what I think the Constitution says Congress can do.

The most important case in Federal law and the jurisdiction of the courts is Marbury v. Madison. In it, the Supreme Court overturned a law of Congress as incompatible with the Constitution. I think this was right, and correct for the Supreme Court to do.

But the critical aspect of that decision is that the Supreme Court said "No" on an act of Congress. They did not dictate a specific answer. To do that (such as the now-defunct Roe v. Wade) is always wrong.

So, setting up the inferior courts including defining what jurisdiction each has is clearly a Constitutional authority granted to Congress. Post-decision review on any court, Supreme or inferior, is not an authority granted to Congress - except in the long-term aspect of not funding the Court, etc.

As far as some of the things the Dhimms want, such as review of Supreme Court Justice tax returns, I always hold that anything that can be done to private citizens can be done to any and all government (at any level) employees. If Congress can review *my* tax return, they should be able to review those of government employees (including all three branches). Make a general law that says all government employees need to publish their tax returns, and the justices will need to comply also (as well as all members of Congress). Limiting it to a specific branch (particularly Judicial or Executive) or even to specific employees within the branch (Supreme Court justices or the President) does fall under the bill of attainder prohibition.

[Political Junkie Too]

I do think that Congress can pass laws in response to court decisions where the court either decided that the law was vague or was unconstitutional or that the court refused to hear a case.

Congress cannot "overturn" a decision, but they can change laws based on decisions so that future decisions can be more informed by more current law.

-PJ