[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.

[inquest]

Keep in mind that even an impeachment that doesn't result in a conviction will probably go a long way towards making judges a little more nervous about trashing the law. They would at that point know that their work will be subject to future scrutiny. An amendment, on the other hand, will simply not have that effect on them at all. It will be spun in such a way as to suggest that we're merely correcting a "defect" in the Constitution, which the judges correctly pointed out to us. That, I'm afraid, will simply encourage judges to misbehave further.