I was making a leap that what was being suggested was that -NO- court could have jurisdiction over certain subject matter.
Congress can do that, too, if it wants. The courts don't have a Constitutional right to hear any and all cases that they think they should. They only have the legal right to hear what Congress wants them to hear, except as to the Supreme Court, and then only as to what Congress assigns it, with the exception of matters that are mentioned in the Constitution. The courts were designed to be tools to assist Congress in the adjucation of legal matters that Congress assigned them. They have become a super legislature, but they were not supposed to be. Read your federalist papers and the Constitution.
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.
On that, you and I agree. Congress has a remedy for that, which is what I am suggesting. The public and a lot of lawyers don't understand the powers that Congress has. Not that you are a lawyer, I would bet a lot of money you are not.
JD with honors, late 1990's, never took the bar, other than USPTO bar.
Just to refresh the topic, here is what sparked me to reply to you.
-- Congress can create inferior courts to help out, and define their jurisdiction. --To that, you said "Don't know where you get your information."Subject to the jurisdictional descriptions in Article III and the 11th amendment, sure. And a Congressional grant or congressional restriction is itself reviewable.
I replied "case law" and cited Hamdan, Marbury having been previously mentioned. Both of those cases involved a court reviewing a Congressional definition of jurisdiction, and in Hamdan, the court reviewed a congressional restriction on jurisdiction.