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.
You did have a cite, but it did not support your proposition.
A court can’t have jurisdiction taken away by law and decide it still has it any more than Congress can take away original jurisdiction and expect courts to accept that. Our system requires that when something is black and white, people accept it, even if they disagree. Courts play around in gray areas where they think they can get away with interpretation. The problem is, we have courts these days saying black is white. They need to be brought in line with their proper role. One way to do that is limit what they can have before them. If courts go completely rogue, the only option left is for other equal branches to ignore them, defund them, impeach them or arrest them.