[jonestown]

Ed Current
As explained in post #1, there isn't any balance of power. SCOTUS has assumed it all.

---

The 'balance of power' is being abused by all three federal branches, and, -- by all State & local governments.
SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.
38 jones

---

How right you are.
41 Ed Current

---

Then you agree, "SCOTUS has [not] assumed it all".
-- SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.
44 jones

---

To: bummerdude;

As you can plainly see, tacticalogic & jonestown remain clueless anyway.
However, everyone else seems to get it, one way or the other.
46 Ed Current

---

Bummer, -- as you can plainly see, - Ed can't even explain his own misconceptions about the balance of power.
Which makes him the "clueless" one.

[Ed Current]

1. As explained in post #1, there isn't any balance of power. SCOTUS has assumed it all.
2. SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.
   

READ ARTICLE III OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and you will understand that #1 & #2 are two ways of stating the same thing.

Article III explicitly vests in Congress the power not to have created lower Federal courts in the first place. The Framers' assumption was quite clear that if Congress chose not to create the lower Federal courts, the State courts could provide an adequate forum to interpret and enforce Federal law, including the Federal Constitution. While this Congress did create the lower Federal courts immediately, it is well established in the case law that that power to, from time to time, ordain and establish the lower Federal courts includes the power to abolish the lower Federal courts, and the greater power to abolish the lower Federal courts logically subsumes within it the power to leave the courts in existence, but limit their jurisdictions.

Article III, section 2 of the Constitution extends extremely limited original jurisdiction to the United States Supreme Court. In all other cases to which the federal judicial power is extended, the Court is given appellate jurisdiction, ''both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'' On its face, this provision provides seemingly unrestrained congressional authority to exclude categories of cases from the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. In Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868), the post-Civil War Supreme Court appeared to recognize the unlimited authority explicitly authorized in the text. See Martin H. Redish, Federal Jurisdiction: Tensions in the Allocation of Judicial Power 25-27 (2d ed. 1990). However, in a subsequent decision the same year, the Court construed McCardle narrowly, leaving open the possibility that the Exceptions Clause is not to be extended as far as its text suggests. Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 85 (1868). See also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has to this day not resolved the outer reaches of the Exceptions Clause, and I fail to comprehend how a textually unlimited power to make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction can be construed to be limited in any way.