[kidd]

As is common in Scalia Dissents, he chastises the majority in strong language. He writes, “ Though the Court resists the Bruner rule, it cannot cite a single case in the history of Anglo-American law (before today) in which a jurisdiction-stripping provision was denied immediate effect in pending cases, absent an explicit statutory reservation. By contrast, the cases granting such immediate effect are legion, and they repeatedly rely on the plain language of the jurisdictional repeal as an ‘inflexible trump....’ ”

1. What is the Bruner rule?

2. Is it Constitutional for Congress to include a jurisdiction-stripping provision in any law? While I agree that the SCOTUS has done its part in breaking down Constitutional checks-and-balances, doesn't the DTA (with its jurisdiction-stripping provision) do this as well?

[lepton]

Is it Constitutional for Congress to include a jurisdiction-stripping provision in any law?

It's directly written into the Constitution: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

In fact, the Court recognized it, then decided that Jurisdiction was based upon when the case began. In this case, the courts lost Jurisdiction Dec 30, 2005, and no longer had any authority to deal with the case in any manner other than to deny Jurisdiction.

[Congressman Billybob]

The DTA does NOT violate the checks and balances in the Constitution because it is EXPLICITLY approved in the Constitution. Read Article III, Section 2. You will see that control of the jurisdiction of the federal courts is given to Congress.

To my knowledge, there have been at least eight instances when Congress used this power to restrain the jurisdiction of those courts. And the cases ducked in the majority decision, but featured in the dissents, make clear that the Court itself has recognized and obeyed this power in the past -- just not in this case.

John / Billybob