I reviewed it, per your request.
I understand the frustration behind it.
However, the proposed bill is unconstitutional and will be struck down by a unanimous Supreme Court. Congress has the power to limit appellate jurisdiction, but to limit Supreme Court power to review acts for Constitutionality. (Sez who? The Supreme Court. Marbury v. Madison is not in the Constitution at all, but that cat ain't gettin' walked back, I guar-awn-teee!)
There are two direct ways to go about dealing with Imperial Judicial overreach. One is a flat refusal by the President to execute a decision that, in the opinion of the Executive Branch, is unconstitutional. The only recourse in such a case is to impeach the President. If his party controls Congress, that cannot be done.
This is the Jacksonian solution.
The other is for Congress to start impeaching Federal Judges for abuses of power. Judges have constitutional authority, but that authority does not extend to abuses of power. So, when Judges start issuing ridiculous decisions, prosecute them for those decisions. Remember, impeachment is a POLITICAL punishment, whose sole punitive result can be removal from office.
Some judge orders the Boy Scouts off of public land? The executive branch stays the order, and Congress impeaches the judge and removes him from office.
The difference between this approach, which is brutal, and the legislative approach proposed is that this approach is constitutional, but the legislative approach is not.
Anyway, the bill will die in a Senate filibuster if cooler heads don't prevail in the House and the Senate.
The only real solution is to pack the judiciary with strict constructionist judges who self-limit. The second-best solution is the precedent set by Jackson and Lincoln of simply disregarding Supreme Court decisions that the President thinks are unconstitutional.
For clarification, are you saying that YOU personally believe it is unconstitutional, or that SCOTUS would declare it unconstitutional based on THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY?
Based on history it does seem likely to me that SCOTUS would declare it unconstitutional as they have become god's in their own minds. It is this very Constitutional crisis that is perpetuating the holocaust of abortion and so much other evil.
Impeachment is possible but VERY unlikely because conviction/removal from office requires 2/3 Senate Majority.
Packing the judiciary with strict constructionist judges who self-limit, is near impossible as 7 of the current 9 are GOP appointements and the Dems will prevent the confirmation of known strict constructionist.
And if SCOTUS were to declare it unconstitutional what's wrong with your own: "The second-best solution is the precedent set by Jackson and Lincoln of simply disregarding Supreme Court decisions that the President thinks are unconstitutional." since it would be THE PRESIDENT who would sign it into law, and his party who passes it?
Jurisdiction stripping is a rather common occurrence. In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm. IMO it's time they use their authority where it REALLY matters most.