Should the Congress Invoke "the exceptions clause" to stop the SCOTUS? (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

O.K. I'm not a lawyer but I think I am on solid legal footing on this one but for the lawyers here let me no if I'm not.

This question is in relation to the Supreme Court's recent forrays into the war powers of the Congress and the Executive branches.

Article 3 section 2 clause 2 "the exceptions clause," is important in these cases because the Judiciary Act of 1789 included the Alien Tort Statute which gave the Federal Judiciary jurisdiction in cases involving foriegners that is why these cases are first being held in Federal District Courts, then on appeal to the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, and eventually on appeal to the SCOTUS.

Now the federal judiciary derives it's power from the congress not the constitution in accordance with Article 3 section 2 clause 2 "the exceptions clause," of the Constitution and is, also, grounded in stare decisis (precedent) begining with the decision in the case of Turner vs. Bank of North America.

Now it is my impression that due to the exceptions clause the congress (if so inclined) could pass a bill which would make decisions regarding the treatment of foriegn detainees off limits to the federal judiciary, and since the SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction in these cases (only appelate jurisdiction) and since the bill would ban the federal judiciary from hearing these cases in the first place it would render the Supreme Court's appelate jurisdiction meaningless, thus the SCOTUS would never even be able entertain so much as a petition for writ of certiorari for these cases.

So I guess this is a two part question:

A) Would it be legal for the Congress to do this?

B) Should the Congress do this?

 

[Goobieman]

The Federal district/appelate courts exist at the whim of Congress, and their jurisdiction is wholly defined by Congress - these courts can only hear cases that Congress says they can, and Congress can expand/contract their jurisdiction at any time for any reason. Congress can almost completely nueter the SCotUS by eliminating the lower courts and forcing the SCotUS back to hearing no case outside its original jurisdiction -- this is a Congressional check and balance against the power of the SCotUS

So, the answer to your fist question is an unquestionable "yes".

As for the "should" -- I guess that depends on Congress' estimation of the performance of the lower courts in this matter -- if these courts are ruling so far outside the bounds of reason that Congress decided something needs to be done, then yes, they should.

But, as you know, The federal courts are the last bastion of real power held by the liberal left, and so you'll hear nothing but howls and screeches should Congress ever decide to do this.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As for the "should" -- I guess that depends on Congress' estimation of the performance of the lower courts in this matter -- if these courts are ruling so far outside the bounds of reason that Congress decided something needs to be done, then yes, they should.

See but that's the thing the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have been ruling in favor of the Governments position like in the Case of the 4th circuit reversing in the Hamdi case but due to the fact that the Federal Courts are able to hear these cases in the first place allows them to eventually be heard infront of the SCOTUS, so I'm thinking that the Congress needs to do a preemptive strike to insure that the SCOTUS doesn't get a chance to shoot down the new detainee bill that they just passed, because you know someone somewhere is going to file suit.

 

[Goobieman]

See but that's the thing the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have been ruling in favor of the Governments position like in the Case of the 4th circuit reversing in the Hamdi case but due to the fact that the Federal Courts are able to hear these cases in the first place allows them to eventually be heard infront of the SCOTUS, so I'm thinking that the Congress needs to do a preemptive strike to insure that the SCOTUS doesn't get a chance to shoot down the new detainee bill that they just passed, because you know someone somewhere is going to file suit.

It's a bad thing, in principle, for Congress to kill off Judicial Review because it plans to pass laws it knows the SCotUS will strike, should it hear the case.

I dont have a problem with Congress doing it if the courts have, over time have and as a whole, shown poor reasoning in their rulings, but that's different than pre-emption.