[inquest]

I forgot to comment on the second half of your post. I have no objection to reining in the power of federal courts under Article III, but we shouldn't be surprised if they deem that unconstitutional. There may even be some justification for that, since Article III grants jurisdiction to federal courts "in all cases" arising under the laws, treaties, and Constitution. I've heard constitutional lawyers advance that argument, the theory being that while Congress may withhold jurisdiction from particular courts, even the supreme, jurisdiction must be exercised by some federal court. I'm a bit skeptical of it myself, but in any case, if the courts rule that way, we'd be right back where we started.

[jwalsh07]

I have no objection to reining in the power of federal courts under Article III, but we shouldn't be surprised if they deem that unconstitutional.

Would not surprise me in the least but the PBA Act of 2003 will be a good test case for how they will come down on that. Santorum's brief essentially tells SCOTUS that Congress, not the courts, are due defference in finding of fact.

I'm interested in how that shakes out.

As for impeachement:

In principle I'm on your side but my opinion is that impeachment is not poltically doable while an amendment telling the supremes that marriage is not their business and is reserved to the states is doable.