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.
Just out of curiosity, what was my proposition, in your view?
In my view, my proposition was, "a Congressional grant [of jurisdiction] or congressional restriction [of jurisdiction] is itself reviewable."
And in my view, SCOTUS examined a congressional limit on jurisdiction, in the Hamdan case.
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."
Beyond my proposition, outside of my proposition, I notice that in the Hamdan case, not only did SCOTUS review a jurisdiction stripping clause (DTA S:1005(e)(1)), they also rejected it, and decided the case anyway.
If one took your proposition literally (excluding the barn-door wide exception "have to follow the constitution"), Congress could strip jurisdiction to hear RKBA/2nd amendment cases, and by that act, Congress has the last, unreviewable word. Obviously that's nonsense, and I am not saying that's what you mean. But it is possible following the rule you stated ...
A court can't have jurisdiction taken away by law and decide it still has it ...