Why does the president have anything to say whatsoever about the jurisdiction of our inferior courts when the Constitution says that shall be established by Congress? I am aware that the practice has been to set these things by statute which, of course, requires the president's signature but am I missing something in the Constitution somewhere?
By introducing the idea into the national consciousness, it starts the proverbial ball rolling.
We have people on FR that lambaste him for not doing anything he promised and claiming to do things that only Congress can approve. He is making progress and he continues to move Congress toward fulfilling the rest.
=>"Sens. McCain, Flake Introduce Bill To Split 9th Circ."
"This year, and this week in particular, however, has seen renewed momentum. In addition to the Flake-McCain bill, Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson introduced a similar bill in the House proposing a new circuit that leaves only California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marina islands remaining in the Ninth Circuit."
The ball is already rolling, Trump is just giving it another nudge.
2. He has to sign the Judiciary Act that Congress sends him to realign the lower courts.
The question is really whether you can accept the President as an influencer at the front-end of the process, or just relegate him to a rubber-stamp at the back-end of the process.
-PJ
Nothing in the constitution gives power to the president in terms of initiating the breakup of an appeals court.
Like you point out, he’d have to sign any legislation. He would nominate any judges for that court.