Is it Time for the US Congress to Impose Checks and Balances on the SCOTUS?

[noonereal]

They pick the result they want then go searching for rationalizations.

This reads like a copy and paste from one of my posts.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

This reads like a copy and paste from one of my posts.

Great minds think alike? I certainly didn't copy it from anywhere.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Captain Adverse:

The SCOTUS's ability to conduct judicial review is no where explicitly granted and described in the US constitution (a marvellous irony in the face of the Roe vs. Wade SCOTUS decision and the unenumerated privacy rights which the justices cited as grounds for undoing the 49-year old SCOTUS decision). Judicial review was established by the Marbury vs. Madison case that was fought out between 1801-1803. So just like Roe vs Wade, which was based on a SCOTUS decision claiming an absence of a constitutional or statutory foundation for privacy rights, so is the role of judicial review by the SCOTUS likewise foundationless and based solely on a SCOTUS decision in 1803. So if stare decisis applies to uphold judicial review by the SCOTUS, then why does it not apply in privacy-right-based Roe vs. Wade and other related cases?

It seems Congress should put the SCOTUS on hold until they can explain that glaring contradiction.

Political power can change quickly but political entrenchment can calcify a society, make it brittle and when citizens' popular discontent grows too strong, shatter brittle society to pieces. No one wants that. So a midway path must be found between radical conservatism and radical progressivism or you're all doomed.

Yes, we in the Democratic Socialist Parliamentary Democracy of Canukistan do things differently, but we see your country quite objectively from outside the fishbowl and we will not remain silent while you lot keep shooting yourselves in the foot with such regularity. You're all too important to us, and we like you lot too. Sorry, but you're just going to have to put up with our foreign ways and foreign perspectives.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Re-Read our Constitution.

Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Law involves criminal cases. Equity involves civil cases.

The way a State's case gets review under the Federal Court system is by asserting a Constitutional issue, an issue arising under Federal law/Treaties, an issue involving Federal officials, etc..

Neither the SCOTUS, nor the Federal Appellate system deals with cases that have no link to either the Constitution or Federal law. As Article III Section 2 above states, it also includes cases and controversies between States, citizens of different States, etc.

Therefore, if such a case wends it's way up to SCOTUS, the panel can choose to review it, table it for future consideration, send it back down for reconsideration at the lower court level, or deny review.

 

[Fishking]

From Article III, Section 2, paragraph two of the US Constitution:



Notice the last clause, "... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Con-gress shall make.".

Is it time for the US Congress to limit the appelate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS as an appellate court in certain areas of law? Given that the present SCOTUS has made decisions which fly in the face of stare decisis, has ignored the protections of the 9th Amendment for unenumerated rights, has arguably employed a kind of false-originalism, divorced from history in order to act as cover for what many see as political rather than strictly legal decisions and has potentially threatened the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the American republic, is it time for Congress, as a check and balance, to limit what can be argued to be a rogue SCOTUS's appelate jurisdiction in certain areas of law?

This was done in 1868 when Congress removed appelate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases from the court and the SCOTUS then accepted Congress's power to do so.

An Act to amend “An Act to amend the judiciary act . . . (Habeas Corpus Act of 1868), March 27, 1868

When William H. McCardle used the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 to challenge his imprisonment, members of Congress feared his case could test the legality of Reconstruction. While the Supreme Court considered McCardle’s arguments, Congress amended the 1867 act to repeal the court’s habeas corpus...

www.visitthecapitol.gov

What say you and why do you say it?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

If you had brought this up with the original Roe, which is fairly commonly known to be a shitty ruling, then you'd at least have some legitimacy backing your attempted point.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision. Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her...

www.law.uchicago.edu

 

[Evilroddy]

Re-Read our Constitution.

Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Law involves criminal cases. Equity involves civil cases.

The way a State's case gets review under the Federal Court system is by asserting a Constitutional issue, an issue arising under Federal law/Treaties, an issue involving Federal officials, etc..

Neither the SCOTUS, nor the Federal Appellate system deals with cases that have no link to either the Constitution or Federal law. As Article III Section 2 above states, it also includes cases and controversies between States, citizens of different States, etc.

Therefore, if such a case wends it's way up to SCOTUS, the panel can choose to review it, table it for future consideration, send it back down for reconsideration at the lower court level, or deny review.

Captain Adverse:

I have read your constitution carefully and have read legal commentary on it too. Let's not confuse the power to hear and render a judgement in a case or an appeal (which is what you have quoted) with the power to overturn Congressional legislation and executive orders which is the separate power of Judicial Review.

From:

About the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Background Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "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."...

www.uscourts.gov

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

There is no mention in the US constitution of the power of Judicial Review belonging to the Supreme Court. For the purposes of clarification judicial review is the power of the courts or a Supreme Court of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the country's constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

The SCOTUS gave itself that power in 1803. There is no explicit authority for the court to exercise that power in the constitution, period. The power is based on a SCOTUS decision only.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

If you had brought this up with the original Roe, which is fairly commonly known to be a shitty ruling, then you'd at least have some legitimacy backing your attempted point.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision. Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her...

www.law.uchicago.edu

Fishking:

This thread is about the possibility of Congress lawfully limiting the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS or exempting it from exercising its self-granted power of judicial review in certain cases as a check and balance of the growing power of the SCOTUS. it is not about Roe vs. Wade. Yes Ginsburg's critique is relevant but not central to the topic under debate here.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Captain Adverse:

I have read your constitution carefully and have read legal commentary on it too.

From:

About the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Background Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "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."...

www.uscourts.gov

There is no mention in the US constitution of the power of Judicial Review belonging to the Supreme Court. For the purposes of clarification judicial review is the power of the courts or a Supreme Court of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the country's constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

The SCOTUS gave itself that power in 1803. There is no explicit authority for the court to exercise that power in the constitution, period. The power is based on a SCOTUS decision only.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Total misunderstanding of the situation.

It is true that the Marbury v. Madison case established the doctrine of Judicial review. However, it was a case filed by one of the parties (Marbury seeking to have the Court confirm his judicial appointment) as opposed by President Jefferson who ordered Secretary of State Madison not to allow it.

It was a "case or controversy" per Article III, Section 2. However, it was also a test of the Courts limits and powers. Still the Court ruled, and the government accepted the ruling which established the power of judicial review.

Recall this was in the earliest era of our nation, and all the branches were working the 'kinks" out of the new Constitution. However, this legal precedent established the power of judicial review as per my description in the prior post. I pointed out how both a case can fall under this power, and what the SCOTUS can do.

It is not something the Congress can now just "wish away."

More importantly, it is a mainstay of judicial powers. I know several governors disagree with certain recent rulings, and are either refusing to adhere, or seeking "workarounds." But if this is allowed, then what kind of example is that to set for anyone else?

Why obey ANY law, other than out of fear of being caught? Of facing a judicial penalty? Why would anyone care what a court decison held, if anyone could simply follow such government examples and "ignore the law?"

 

[ttwtt78640]

Total misunderstanding of the situation.

It is true that the Marbury v. Madison case established the doctrine of Judicial review. However, it was a case filed by one of the parties (Marbury seeking to have the Court confirm his judicial appointment) as opposed by President Jefferson who ordered Secretary of State Madison not to allow it.

It was a "case or controversy" per Article III, Section 2. However, it was also a test of the Courts limits and powers. Still the Court ruled, and the government accepted the ruling which established the power of judicial review.

Recall this was in the earliest era of our nation, and all the branches were working the 'kinks" out of the new Constitution. However, this legal precedent established the power of judicial review as per my description in the prior post. I pointed out how both a case can fall under this power, and what the SCOTUS can do.

It is not something the Congress can now just "wish away."

Yep, that would essentially grant congress the power to exempt (selected?) federal laws from SCOTUS review.

 

[Evilroddy]

Total misunderstanding of the situation.

It is true that the Marbury v. Madison case established the doctrine of Judicial review. However, it was a case filed by one of the parties (Marbury seeking to have the Court confirm his judicial appointment) as opposed by President Jefferson who ordered Secretary of State Madison not to allow it.

The SCOTUS could have ordered a Writ of Mandamus to be issued as a remedy and not asserted the vastly greater power of Judical Review to overturn Congressional legislative power. I edited my previous post to clarify the distinction between hearing a case and rendering a decision with judicial review but you had already begun your reply.

It was a "case or controversy" per Article III, Section 2. However, it was also a test of the Courts limits and powers. Still the Court ruled, and the government accepted the ruling which established the power of judicial review.

Yes, there was an implicit desire among many at this time that the SCOTUS needed such a power but that power was never explicitly given to the SCOTUS by the US constitution. It was taken by the SCOTUS for itself, albeit with the blessing of many in the halls of power.

Recall this was in the earliest era of our nation, and all the branches were working the 'kinks" out of the new Constitution. However, this legal precedent established the power of judicial review as per my description in the prior post. I pointed out how both a case can fall under this power, and what the SCOTUS can do.

Irrelevant as the OP points out the explicitly delineated power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction and to exempt itself from the power of the Supreme Court written into the US constitution. This power of Congress has been used at least five times beginning in 1868 when Congress prevented the SCOTUS from interfering with the broadened protections of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1868 which reestablished the Great Writ after the Civil War.

It is not something the Congress can now just "wish away."

Precedent and stare decisis says otherwise.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Yep, that would essentially grant congress the power to exempt (selected?) federal laws from SCOTUS review.

ttwtt78640:

Read the OP. The US constitution explicitly gives Congress that power at the end of Article III, Section 2, paragraph two of the US constitution.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The SCOTUS could have ordered a Writ of Mandamus to be issued as a remedy and not asserted the vastly greater power of Judical Review to overturn Congressional legislative power. I edited my previous post to clarify the distinction between hearing a case and rendering a decision with judicial review but you had already begun your reply.

The problem with your argument is this. If there is no power of judicial review, then there really is no power to review a lower Court, or State Court decision.

But all appellate Courts, not just the SCOTUS, have the power of judicial review. In the State Courts, per their State Constitutions. In the Federal Courts, per the Article II powers and judicial review.

The system works. It prevents either the Congress or the President from turning the Federal Court system into a mere rubber stamp, as is and was the case in every other historical example of totalitarian and authoritarian States.

Yes, there was an implicit desire among many at this time that the SCOTUS needed such a power but that power was never explicitly given to the SCOTUS by the US constitution. It was taken by the SCOTUS for itself, albeit with the blessing of many in the halls of power.

You act like this "need" has suddenly disappeared. As events are showing, nothing could be further from the truth.

This is what amazes and confuses me about so many alleged "Liberals" in this day and age. Now you can be forgiven as having grown up in a nation with a different set of rules, and a clear misunderstanding of how and why this system has persisted despite a few prior efforts to change it.

It simply works. That is, for everyone who prefers no one branch of government to dominate the socio-political system.

Irrelevant as the OP points out the explicitly delineated power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction and to exempt itself from the power of the Supreme Court written into the US constitution. This power of Congress has been used at least five times beginning in 1868 when Congress prevented the SCOTUS from interfering with the broadened protections of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1868 which reestablished the Great Writ after the Civil War.

You mean the abuses allowed by the Congress via such action. Of course, at the time you speak of the majority of the SCOTUS membership was "southern." Therefore "untrustworthy" in the eyes of the Republican controlled Congress.

Precedent and stare decisis says otherwise.

Actually, they don't else Congress would have amended the Constitution, or made permanent change rather than narrow ones as you cited.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

To you too.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Don't be ridiculous. The current court is a bad joke. They pick the result they want then go searching for rationalizations.

Roe v. Wade is a textbook case of the court doing this. It was a desirable result, but the rationalization for it was pure sophistry.

 

[Fishking]

Fishking:

This thread is about the possibility of Congress lawfully limiting the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS or exempting it from exercising its self-granted power of judicial review in certain cases as a check and balance of the growing power of the SCOTUS. it is not about Roe vs. Wade. Yes Ginsburg's critique is relevant but not central to the topic under debate here.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Growing power by handing back over power to the states to handle things at their level? That's the opposite. Further, you also made accusations about recent rulings, so pushing back on your false claims is a legitimate response to what you posted.

But, yes, there is a concern of the more liberal types of judges who rule outside of the actual powers of the Constitution and making de facto constitutional amendments that violate the separation of powers. I see attempts at what you're suggesting being shot down by the court itself, as it's not the job of the courts to be a body that is bent to the fickle will of the people and the current waves of populism. That is the Congress' position and it's up to them to make those laws themselves.

Part of the problem is there is no mandate to actually make the big changes that progressives want the proper way, via constitutional amendment. In fact, if anyone is close to having the power to amend the Constitution it is the GOP as they have much more state control than the Dems do. Either way, that leaves us with the status quo as that is how our system works and I absolutely love it. Progressives hate it because they want to tear the whole system down but they don't have that mandate.

 

[Fishking]

Don't be ridiculous. The current court is a bad joke. They pick the result they want then go searching for rationalizations. These rulings are 100% politically motivated and the last three appointees lied to get the post. They were chosen specifically because they would behave unscrupulously to provide the minority with the dream legislation they couldn't get through congress because of it's unpopularity.

RBJ, the liberal saint of the Supreme Court said Roe was a shit decision and so have many pro-abortion people.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Roe v. Wade is a textbook case of the court doing this. It was a desirable result, but the rationalization for it was pure sophistry.

You mean Dobbs vs Jackson women's health organization

 

[bomberfox]

The Supreme Court judges ARE the checks and balances. If the American People don't like the abortion ruling, they can elect representatives to codify Roe if that's what they want. In the meantime the states can handle it. Liberals are used to having the SC in their back pocket, for once in their life they don't and they go into a rage.

Gutting the voting rights act, citizens united, etc. need i go on?

 

[bomberfox]

Republicans still act like they’ve not had power for a hell of a long time. Just goes to show you they cannot be compromised with.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

RBJ, the liberal saint of the Supreme Court said Roe was a shit decision and so have many pro-abortion people.

That's nice. Also totally immaterial.

 

[Noodlegawd]

You mean Dobbs vs Jackson women's health organization

Quite the opposite. That's a case where the Supreme Court reached the shocking conclusion that the Constitution doesn't say something it doesn't actually say.

 

[Evilroddy]

The problem with your argument is this. If there is no power of judicial review, then there really is no power to review a lower Court, or State Court decision.

Captain Adverse:

Sure there is a power to review lower courts' decisions without the power of judicial review. Appelate courts can examine, uphold or overturn lower courts' decisions/rulings as normal. That's not what judicial review means in the context of the SCOTUS. Judicial review means the ability to overturn Congressional legislation and/or executive orders, a power which goes well beyond the role of the SCOTUS as defined in the constitution.

But all appellate Courts, not just the SCOTUS, have the power of judicial review. In the State Courts, per their State Constitutions. In the Federal Courts, per the Article II powers and judicial review.

That is again conflating the meaning of "judicial review" as defined by US legal scholars and the appelate role of any court of second instance. Since state constitutions vary and I don't have the time to check all 50 states' constitutions, I'll let your claim on state courts stay unchallenged at this time, as it is not directly relevant to the Federal Jurisdiction of the SCOTUS.

The system works. It prevents either the Congress or the President from turning the Federal Court system into a mere rubber stamp, as is and was the case in every other historical example of totalitarian and authoritarian States.

I think many would disagree with this conclusion. The SCOTUS should be left alone to do its job, when it does it properly. But American legal history is full of very bad SCOTUS decisions, so it is wise to make the SCOTUS as a whole (not individual justices) accountable to another branch of government. That is why, in my opinion, Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 is written as it is - to make the institution of the SCOTUS answerable to Congress rather than being answerable to no one.

You act like this "need" has suddenly disappeared. As events are showing, nothing could be further from the truth.

The need to have judicial review of the Congress and the executive is real and is still a present need. However the need for SCOTUS answerability to the other branches of government is also a competing and countervailing need which was explicitly addressed in the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 2, para. 2) while judicial review was not. Therefore it is my contention that both powers should be recognised and use when necessary to promote peace, tranquility and the general welfare of the American people. When Congress (or the executive) screws up in the learned opinion of the SCOTUS, then judicial review should be the remedy. When the SCOTUS screws up in the sober opinion of the Congress, then Article III's exemption clause should be used to remedy the situation.

This is what amazes and confuses me about so many alleged "Liberals" in this day and age. Now you can be forgiven as having grown up in a nation with a different set of rules, and a clear misunderstanding of how and why this system has persisted despite a few prior efforts to change it.

This is not a liberal-conservative issue. There are plenty of bad SCOTUS decisions which favoured a liberal or progressive agenda and there are plenty which favoured an illiberal or conservative agenda. The institution of the SCOTUS should be accountable to the other branches of government, irrespective of its ideological make-up of the court at any given time in history.

It simply works. That is, for everyone who prefers no one branch of government to dominate the socio-political system.

I think an argument can and has been made that the SCOTUS does not always work. Holding the SCOTUS accountable to Congress is just another check and balance.

More to follow when time permits. I will address the last few points of your post later.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Fishking]

That's nice. Also totally immaterial.

Except it isn't. The current decision was the right one. The original Roe should've never happened.

 

[mrjurrs]

From Article III, Section 2, paragraph two of the US Constitution:



Notice the last clause, "... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Con-gress shall make.".

Is it time for the US Congress to limit the appelate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS as an appellate court in certain areas of law? Given that the present SCOTUS has made decisions which fly in the face of stare decisis, has ignored the protections of the 9th Amendment for unenumerated rights, has arguably employed a kind of false-originalism, divorced from history in order to act as cover for what many see as political rather than strictly legal decisions and has potentially threatened the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the American republic, is it time for Congress, as a check and balance, to limit what can be argued to be a rogue SCOTUS's appelate jurisdiction in certain areas of law?

This was done in 1868 when Congress removed appelate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases from the court and the SCOTUS then accepted Congress's power to do so.

An Act to amend “An Act to amend the judiciary act . . . (Habeas Corpus Act of 1868), March 27, 1868

When William H. McCardle used the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 to challenge his imprisonment, members of Congress feared his case could test the legality of Reconstruction. While the Supreme Court considered McCardle’s arguments, Congress amended the 1867 act to repeal the court’s habeas corpus...

www.visitthecapitol.gov

What say you and why do you say it?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

The checks and balances are already in place. End the filibuster.

 

[Evilroddy]

The checks and balances are already in place. End the filibuster.

mrjurrs:

To the honourable member from "The Bay". This is a check to balance powers written into the US constitution, so discussing its possible use is the purpose of this thread; the filIbuster shall continue!

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Sure there is a power to review lower courts' decisions without the power of judicial review. Appelate courts can examine, uphold or overturn lower courts' decisions/rulings as normal. That's not what judicial review means in the context of the SCOTUS. Judicial review means the ability to overturn Congressional legislation and/or executive orders, a power which goes well beyond the role of the SCOTUS as defined in the constitution.

Actually, it is the ability of the SCOTUS to determine if a law, rule, regulation, or action of either of the other two branches is CONSTITUTIONAL. It is a power established by Marbury v. Madison and it has stood the test of time because it has been recognized for over 200 years as a mainstay of American Constitutional jurisprudence.

If the original body of founders and supporters of the new nation had thought it was judicial overreach, it would have been dealt with at that time. They did not, and it was accepted up to the Post-Civil War period.

Yet those subsequent exceptions were still reviewed by SCOTUS at the time and found Constitutional. This likely because they recognized the Congress was dealing with a "conquered territory" whose members had been deprived of sovereign Statehood pending reconstruction and admission back into the US body politic.

However, as soon as each State was fully re-admitted, those limits were null and void.

That is again conflating the meaning of "judicial review" as defined by US legal scholars and the appelate role of any court of second instance.

Not at all. In order for SCOTUS to rule on something, it has to be brought before it. Even if it has to be frozen by a writ and dragged before the Court.

Since state constitutions vary and I don't have the time to check all 50 states' constitutions, I'll let your claim on state courts stay unchallenged at this time, as it is not directly relevant to the Federal Jurisdiction of the SCOTUS.

State Courts echo the SCOTUS, but are limited by their own Constitutions, and only deal with internal State matters.

I think many would disagree with this conclusion. The SCOTUS should be left alone to do its job, when it does it properly. But American legal history is full of very bad SCOTUS decisions, so it is wise to make the SCOTUS as a whole (not individual justices) accountable to another branch of government. That is why, in my opinion, Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 is written as it is - to make the institution of the SCOTUS answerable to Congress rather than being answerable to no one.

It is subject to Congressional impeachment proceedings. It is also subject to Section 2 limitations. Yet our government has run fairly smoothly knowing that people have a "disinterested" Judicial system protecting Constitutional rights. Otherwise, IMO we would all be subject to an abusive Presidency or Congress. Worse, we might have to deal with a Parliamentary system, which didn't seem to bode well for free expression the last time that occurred.

The need to have judicial review of the Congress and the executive is real and is still a present need. However the need for SCOTUS answerability to the other branches of government is also a competing and countervailing need..

I'll stop you right there and remind you SCOTUS id subject to discipline, via impeachment by Congress. Worse yet, the power to increase membership and "stack" the Court also rests with Congress. IMO that is a worse problem because it has always been used to bully the SCOTUS, often into bad rulings we are still dealing with today.

This is not a liberal-conservative issue.

IMO it is. As the push to "stack, limit, or otherwise weaken" the SCOTUS has typically come from the Democrat side of the house. (Exceptions including the post-Civil War Republican controlled Congress).

I think an argument can and has been made that the SCOTUS does not always work. Holding the SCOTUS accountable to Congress is just another check and balance.

Perhaps, but then it typically ends up "self-correcting" eventually, as shown by those many rulings overturning bad prior law.

Cheers back,

 

[NotreDame]

From Article III, Section 2, paragraph two of the US Constitution:



Notice the last clause, "... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Con-gress shall make.".

Is it time for the US Congress to limit the appelate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS as an appellate court in certain areas of law? Given that the present SCOTUS has made decisions which fly in the face of stare decisis, has ignored the protections of the 9th Amendment for unenumerated rights, has arguably employed a kind of false-originalism, divorced from history in order to act as cover for what many see as political rather than strictly legal decisions and has potentially threatened the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the American republic, is it time for Congress, as a check and balance, to limit what can be argued to be a rogue SCOTUS's appelate jurisdiction in certain areas of law?

This was done in 1868 when Congress removed appelate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases from the court and the SCOTUS then accepted Congress's power to do so.

An Act to amend “An Act to amend the judiciary act . . . (Habeas Corpus Act of 1868), March 27, 1868

When William H. McCardle used the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 to challenge his imprisonment, members of Congress feared his case could test the legality of Reconstruction. While the Supreme Court considered McCardle’s arguments, Congress amended the 1867 act to repeal the court’s habeas corpus...

www.visitthecapitol.gov

What say you and why do you say it?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Fantastic idea. Now, the lower appellate courts can’t trample the rights you want to protect with impunity if not near impunity as SCOTUS isn’t available to reverse.

The end result will be similar to the status quo regarding abortion, the conservative appellate courts will decide X for their jurisdiction while more moderate and/or liberal appellate courts will decide Y over the same issue. The result is, like abortion now, a map of inconsistency.