Replies

Don't know where you are getting your information. If Congress took away jurisdiction from an inferior court and then that court or any other federal court attempted to review that decision, that would be a clear case of the courts usurping their power under the Constitution and violating the constitution. Not that they might not try, but in such cases when one branch clearly oversteps, it is incumbent on the other branches not to accept such actions. In, say, removing jurisdiction from the 9th circuit to hear cases involving immigration, for example, if they tried to hear them anyway, they should be denied all funds for such endeavors and impeached. The cases would eventually get to the SC, which would slap them down for lack of jurisdiction. However, we are always one or two supreme court justices from total lawlessness, so in that event, all bets are off.

You can always pose what ifs where courts disregard the law even more than they already do. What if a judge is impeached and refuses to leave the bench, and is assigned cases by the head judge of his district? What if Congress splits the 9th circuit and the 9th continues to hear cases from the new circuit? The possibilities are endless in a lawless society, but that doesn't change what the law says.

-- Don't know where you are getting your information. --

Case law. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld being one example.

-- In, say, removing jurisdiction from the 9th circuit to hear cases involving immigration, for example, if they tried to hear them anyway, they should be denied all funds for such endeavors and impeached. --

Congress has succesfully assigned subjet matter jurisdiction to specialty courts, no sweat on that.

I was making a leap that what was being suggested was that -NO- court could have jurisdiction over certain subject matter.

I don't foresee Congress ever doing the right thing on its own. It allowed GWB to create a court, usurp a Congressional power, up to the point that SCOTUS mentioned the GWB had no power to create a court. I think the interval was on the order of four years.

The Government's motion to dismiss, based on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), is denied. DTA S:1005(e)(1) provides that "no court ... shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider ... an application for ... habeas corpus filed by ... an alien detained ... at Guantanamo Bay."

-- The possibilities are endless in a lawless society, but that doesn't change what the law says. --

In our society, SCOTUS hallucinates rights to abortion and homosexual marriage, forces people to violate common religious beliefs, facilitates expansion of FedGov well outside constitutional boundaries, allowed (for decades) states to disarm free people, and I'm just getting started. Whatever the law says is just so much hot air.