[Viva Le Dissention]

Hmm, that's interesting.

Not that anyone in here would actually be interested in what the Constitution says, but let's turn to Art. III.

We know that judges of the supreme and inferior courts will hold their offices during "good behavior." This is broad, of course, but it's worth noting that only 7 judges in the history of the United States have been impeached and convicted.

But turning to the "ordain and establish" clause of Art. III on which you rely.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Now, read literally, the power of Congress extends only to the creation of the inferior courts. The question then becomes, "If Congress and create the inferior courts, is there an implicit power to eliminate them?"

I've often argued that there is such power, especially when making the point to all you "strict constructionists" out there that, if read literally, judicial review is unconstitutional. But, in a case such as this, when Congress would be deliberately acting in bad faith in dissolving the 9th Circuit, I have a feeling that the Supremes would be somewhat unlikely to allow Congress the power to unseat federal judges at its whim.

[Notwithstanding]

The 9th is way to big - disproportinately so due to CA's swelling.

There is a practical need to divide that circuit into 2 or 3 new circuits. Thus there would be no bad faith if this were done by Congress.

[capitan_refugio]

I do agree that if you have the power to "create" and institution of government, then you also have that same power to eliminate it.

Of the three co-equal branches of government, Congress is the eldest. In theory, Congress represents the will of the people, and if the people don't want a renegade court anymore, that's how it should be.

Congress also contrals the pursestrings. At the very least, Congress could cripple the 9th Circuit by eliminating funding and/or altering jurisdiction.