NOT the Supreme Court's job to decide what's unconstitutional

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Decider knows all, who needs a Supreme Court?

Seriously, is there any ideological/strategic difference between the right-wing radicals ruining this country and the Islamists seeking Islamic states in their homelands? They both want to achieve power through democratic means and then dismantle and destroy those processes to remain in power for eternity.

Not a whole lot I'm afraid. Biggest difference is that the Islamic Extremists already have f***ed up socities to deal with and the RW Radicals have the exact opposite. If both got what they want, in time the differences might not be much, but I suspect that neither the average American nor the average Muslim would tolerate either for very long.

What the hell is wrong with you people?
When is the last time someone on the right suggested that we stone to death someone who committed adultery? That is what they would have done to Monic under Shira law in some countries.
Maybe if you stopped making stupid and outrageous statements like this we could move forward as a country instead of fighting all the time.

ProfJohn, the problem with trying to say that Clinton signed as many as Bush is that most signing statements have been used as clarification, Bush has used them as a direct challenge to law. Note the quote below. Your comparison is that same as saying two men commited the same number of crimes in their lifetime, ignoring the fact that one commited shoplifting and the other commited rape and murder. See the quote for clarification.

George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 750 challenges.[

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Decider knows all, who needs a Supreme Court?

Seriously, is there any ideological/strategic difference between the right-wing radicals ruining this country and the Islamists seeking Islamic states in their homelands? They both want to achieve power through democratic means and then dismantle and destroy those processes to remain in power for eternity.

Not a whole lot I'm afraid. Biggest difference is that the Islamic Extremists already have f***ed up socities to deal with and the RW Radicals have the exact opposite. If both got what they want, in time the differences might not be much, but I suspect that neither the average American nor the average Muslim would tolerate either for very long.

What the hell is wrong with you people?
When is the last time someone on the right suggested that we stone to death someone who committed adultery? That is what they would have done to Monic under Shira law in some countries.
Maybe if you stopped making stupid and outrageous statements like this we could move forward as a country instead of fighting all the time.

Maybe if the totalitarian right-wing fanatics running the White House would abdicate the throne and submit themselves to war crimes tribunals at The Hague then we could move on. Until that happens, this country will continue on the path toward self-induced destruction.

BTW, nice of you to start with your own admonition "Let the flames and personal attacks begin."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Seriously, is there any ideological/strategic difference between the right-wing radicals ruining this country and the Islamists seeking Islamic states in their homelands?

LOL... kids these days.

Nice of you to avoid posting anything of consequence. Your useless post will be taken as a negative answer to my question.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: thraashman

ProfJohn, the problem with trying to say that Clinton signed as many as Bush is that most signing statements have been used as clarification, Bush has used them as a direct challenge to law. Note the quote below. Your comparison is that same as saying two men commited the same number of crimes in their lifetime, ignoring the fact that one commited shoplifting and the other commited rape and murder. See the quote for clarification.

George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 750 challenges.[

It's more like comparing writing an op/ed to committing treason.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Decider knows all, who needs a Supreme Court?

Seriously, is there any ideological/strategic difference between the right-wing radicals ruining this country and the Islamists seeking Islamic states in their homelands? They both want to achieve power through democratic means and then dismantle and destroy those processes to remain in power for eternity.

Not a whole lot I'm afraid. Biggest difference is that the Islamic Extremists already have f***ed up socities to deal with and the RW Radicals have the exact opposite. If both got what they want, in time the differences might not be much, but I suspect that neither the average American nor the average Muslim would tolerate either for very long.

What the hell is wrong with you people?
When is the last time someone on the right suggested that we stone to death someone who committed adultery? That is what they would have done to Monic under Shira law in some countries.
Maybe if you stopped making stupid and outrageous statements like this we could move forward as a country instead of fighting all the time.

Patience, devolution takes time.

 

[cker]

Originally posted by: thraashman
It's more like comparing writing an op/ed to committing treason.

There's a difference these days?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Decider knows all, who needs a Supreme Court?

Seriously, is there any ideological/strategic difference between the right-wing radicals ruining this country and the Islamists seeking Islamic states in their homelands? They both want to achieve power through democratic means and then dismantle and destroy those processes to remain in power for eternity.

Not a whole lot I'm afraid. Biggest difference is that the Islamic Extremists already have f***ed up socities to deal with and the RW Radicals have the exact opposite. If both got what they want, in time the differences might not be much, but I suspect that neither the average American nor the average Muslim would tolerate either for very long.

What the hell is wrong with you people?
When is the last time someone on the right suggested that we stone to death someone who committed adultery? That is what they would have done to Monic under Shira law in some countries.
Maybe if you stopped making stupid and outrageous statements like this we could move forward as a country instead of fighting all the time.

and thank are lucky stars that we live in a socially liberal society and not a religous conservative society like in the ME. Though I know there are some in this country working towards destorying our socially liberal way of life.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: yllus
Allowing the Supreme Court to make those decisions always confused me when I took a look at the American system of governance.

I mean - you want the final judgement on the law to be by people who are appointed, not elected? It seems rather dangerous. I much rather be able to vote out the scoundrels who break the spirit of our country's constitution as needed.

But then you'd have constitutionality based on a popularity contest.




EDIT: spelling

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Signing statements have been around since James Monroe and Clinton signed as many as Bush has signed.

While that is almost true it doesn't tell the whole story, Bush "ignores" many more provisions than anyone else when he issues a signing statement.

"George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 constitutional challenges) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto although the Supreme Court already held the line item veto as an unconstitutional delegation of power in Clinton v. City of New York.[6]
Wikinews has news related to:
Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight

Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 750 challenges."

Text

Not comparing apples to apples, not in the least.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
Well honestly there is no where in the US consitition that explicitely gives that power to the Supreme Court.

They just sort of just started doing that on thier own way back in the day and it has stuck around ever since.

that is a popular misconception. the Constitution does explicitly give that power to the Supreme Court, it just leaves it up to the Court to decide how to exercise that authority.

Which they did, in Marbury vs Madison.

Something that really doesn't exist in the Constitution is the right Bush asserts he has to only enforce the parts of the law he wants too.

 

[piasabird]

Tony Snow is right to a point. The Judiciary is not suppose to be able to write new law. The Judiciary is suppose to decide on the existing points of law. However, under our present legal system, the supreme court can make decisions that are considered Law or a Precedent.

The problem always arises when a Judge chooses to ignore the law and the spirit the law was written in to make new laws just because of their personal leanings to the left or the right. This is called an activist judge. All supreme court judges should have to pass muster for every presidential election and the people should have the right to vote on their retention based on their conduct on the bench. In this way we could get rid of judges that the American people do not have confidence in to do their job.

Another way to control them would be to limit their term of service to the American people. I think 10 years as a supreme court judge is long enough for anyone.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Tony Snow is right to a point. The Judiciary is not suppose to be able to write new law. The Judiciary is suppose to decide on the existing points of law. However, under our present legal system, the supreme court can make decisions that are considered Law or a Precedent.

The problem always arises when a Judge chooses to ignore the law and the spirit the law was written in to make new laws just because of their personal leanings to the left or the right. This is called an activist judge. All supreme court judges should have to pass muster for every presidential election and the people should have the right to vote on their retention based on their conduct on the bench. In this way we could get rid of judges that the American people do not have confidence in to do their job.

Another way to control them would be to limit their term of service to the American people. I think 10 years as a supreme court judge is long enough for anyone.

Like I said earlier, that would turn the Constitution into a popularity contest.

And another thing, what 'new laws' have been written by these 'activist' judges?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: OFFascist
Well honestly there is no where in the US consitition that explicitely gives that power to the Supreme Court.

They just sort of just started doing that on thier own way back in the day and it has stuck around ever since.

that is a popular misconception. the Constitution does explicitly give that power to the Supreme Court, it just leaves it up to the Court to decide how to exercise that authority.

Which they did, in Marbury vs Madison.

Something that really doesn't exist in the Constitution is the right Bush asserts he has to only enforce the parts of the law he wants too.

Pisabird is sort of right but Snow is demonstrably wrong.

The Judiciary certainly is not supposed to write NEW law. But the Executive doesn't write NEW law either. The executive either agrees with a bill as written . . . then signs it. OR the executive disagrees and vetoes the bill. The primary task of the Executive is to carry out the law . . . as written. The executive does NOT have the discretion to say

"hmm, I like this part, let's add some more . . . I don't like this part so I will just ignore that . . . I really don't like this part so I will do the exact opposite."

It is indeed the Judiciary's responsibility to ensure laws are enacted and executed in compliance with the Constitution. So for instance, the MA Supreme Court didn't 'legalize' homosexual marriage. It just said if the state is going to make laws pertaining to marriage, those laws cannot be arbitrarily discriminatory. Obviously, the MA Leg can take a variety of approaches; including the reapl of all state laws applying to marriage. Problem solved and no new laws. But the state arguably has a vested interest in supporting domestic unions. In that case, it's quite easy to codify civil unions that grant all the state privileges of marriage. While marriage itself becomes and remains what it should be . . . a religious or pseudoreligious ceremony that is neither supported nor arbitrarily regulated by the state. And no that doesn't mean you can marry a 12 year-old.

Further, why on Earth would anyone want to trust the Constitution to some turd that may know nothing about the law?

I mean - you want the final judgement on the law to be by people who are appointed, not elected? It seems rather dangerous. I much rather be able to vote out the scoundrels who break the spirit of our country's constitution as needed.

What is truly dangerous is allowing people that couldn't even meet the barest admission requirements for law school (Bush43) be in a position to break the spirit of the Constitution as needed.

Harriet Meiers notwithstanding. People nominated to be USSC justices have long track records of exceptional legal training and practice . . . with exceptions (Clarence Thomas). The confirmation process is political but rarely lets an unfit candidate through. The same certainly cannot be said for the kind of people that get elected.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Signing statements have been around since James Monroe and Clinton signed as many as Bush has signed.

While that is almost true it doesn't tell the whole story, Bush "ignores" many more provisions than anyone else when he issues a signing statement.

"George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 constitutional challenges) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto although the Supreme Court already held the line item veto as an unconstitutional delegation of power in Clinton v. City of New York.[6]
Wikinews has news related to:
Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight

Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 750 challenges."

Text

Not comparing apples to apples, not in the least.

From reading this whole thread I've come to the conclusion that ProfJohn's post was full of half truths, maybe even outright lies. Funny, it's not the first time his posts "facts" have been shredded. He's made troll status as far as I'm concerned.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Tony Snow is right to a point. The Judiciary is not suppose to be able to write new law. The Judiciary is suppose to decide on the existing points of law. However, under our present legal system, the supreme court can make decisions that are considered Law or a Precedent.

The problem always arises when a Judge chooses to ignore the law and the spirit the law was written in to make new laws just because of their personal leanings to the left or the right. This is called an activist judge. All supreme court judges should have to pass muster for every presidential election and the people should have the right to vote on their retention based on their conduct on the bench. In this way we could get rid of judges that the American people do not have confidence in to do their job.

Another way to control them would be to limit their term of service to the American people. I think 10 years as a supreme court judge is long enough for anyone.

Name one law enacted by the supreme court.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: piasabird
Tony Snow is right to a point. The Judiciary is not suppose to be able to write new law. The Judiciary is suppose to decide on the existing points of law. However, under our present legal system, the supreme court can make decisions that are considered Law or a Precedent.

The problem always arises when a Judge chooses to ignore the law and the spirit the law was written in to make new laws just because of their personal leanings to the left or the right. This is called an activist judge. All supreme court judges should have to pass muster for every presidential election and the people should have the right to vote on their retention based on their conduct on the bench. In this way we could get rid of judges that the American people do not have confidence in to do their job.

Another way to control them would be to limit their term of service to the American people. I think 10 years as a supreme court judge is long enough for anyone.

Name one law enacted by the supreme court.

Sometimes I think it's an issue of point-of-view.

Some would say the Constitution codifies a general right to privacy and self-determination that would cover abortion rights. Arguably, that's what the USSC said in Roe v Wade.

Others will argue Roe 1973 established a NEW law. Further, this new law unnecessarily and improperly restricted state law on the issue.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: yllus
Allowing the Supreme Court to make those decisions always confused me when I took a look at the American system of governance.

I mean - you want the final judgement on the law to be by people who are appointed, not elected? It seems rather dangerous. I much rather be able to vote out the scoundrels who break the spirit of our country's constitution as needed.

Actually yes, the system was well thought out by the framers. As evidenced by the current crop of politicians on both sides of the aisle, those elected are bought and paid for, and a bunch of imbeciles who shouldn't be entrusted with the ability to decide the constitutionality of laws. Regardless of their left or right personal bias, I'm happy with the USSC and the way it's performed it's duties.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: yllus
Allowing the Supreme Court to make those decisions always confused me when I took a look at the American system of governance.

I mean - you want the final judgement on the law to be by people who are appointed, not elected? It seems rather dangerous. I much rather be able to vote out the scoundrels who break the spirit of our country's constitution as needed.

Actually yes, the system was well thought out by the framers. As evidenced by the current crop of politicians on both sides of the aisle, those elected are bought and paid for, and a bunch of imbeciles who shouldn't be entrusted with the ability to decide the constitutionality of laws. Regardless of their left or right personal bias, I'm happy with the USSC and the way it's performed it's duties.

I disagree with both of you.

First, yes, I think that the setup we have is better than the democratic alternative, in having people seperated from the demands of money and votes in interpreting the law.

I guess you could go back as far as Plato's 'philosopher-kings' for the prototype, but the idea is basically that those who stand to make money or who are indebted to a group of voters are not going to be able to rule against those interests all that well; how would *you* deal with the issue of the 'tyranny of the majority', when the rights of a minority in the constitution are threatened by the majority? The courts are the last protection from the mob (not the mafia, the raving hordes).

Second, I don't think the founders did all that well at thinking about the needs: I think we got to the right answer by accident.

Read the history and you will find founders agreeing with yllus, terrified at the idea of the court having the power to interpret the consitution as the last word, saying that the result would be tyranny for the nation as this unelected and unaccountable group got too much power - it was not in the constitution, but rather in later battles, especially Marbury v. Madison (note the v. Madison - that's founding father and leading author of the constitution James Madison arguing against the power of the court), that led to this power.

And finally, I do think that it is flawed - perhaps the least of evils - with periods where the court is packed with ideologues who do badly, primarily during the gilded age and the time we're at danged from now with the right-wing fanatic appointees, Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Thomas and soon to be a majority.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: alzan

Amazing....so we can safely assume that Mr. Snow (along with the administration he represents) failed Civics all the way through high school?

Originally posted by: Tom

that is a popular misconception. the Constitution does explicitly give that power to the Supreme Court, it just leaves it up to the Court to decide how to exercise that authority.

Which they did, in Marbury vs Madison.

First of all, those who don't know their civics should refrain from critizing others for their own lack of knowledge. Let's examine what the Constitution actually says:

Article 3, section 2:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Therefore, the only subjects for which the judiciary has original and unalienable jurisdiction are those mentioned. Congress has the power to remove jurisdiction for all other subjects as they deem fit. Therefore, the prinicple of judicial review as enshrined in Marbury v. Madison is *NOT* based upon powers expressly delegated to the Judicial branch. It certainly does not "leave it up to the court to decide how to exercise that authority" as Tom states. While I'm not stating that it would be a good idea for Congress to undo the principle of Judicial Review, let's not kid oursevles - it's within Congress' power.

Now that we've cleared that up.... the statement made by Tony Snow was an absolute mess. As others have pointed out, the "responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution is hardly the exclusive domain of the President. I'm really not sure what point he's trying to make.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: glenn1
...
First of all, those who don't know their civics should refrain from critizing others for their own lack of knowledge. Let's examine what the Constitution actually says:

Article 3, section 2:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Therefore, the only subjects for which the judiciary has original and unalienable jurisdiction are those mentioned. Congress has the power to remove jurisdiction for all other subjects as they deem fit. Therefore, the prinicple of judicial review as enshrined in Marbury v. Madison is *NOT* based upon powers expressly delegated to the Judicial branch. It certainly does not "leave it up to the court to decide how to exercise that authority" as Tom states. While I'm not stating that it would be a good idea for Congress to undo the principle of Judicial Review, let's not kid oursevles - it's within Congress' power.

...

I'm not so sure it's that simple. A naive reading of Article 3 would seem to indicate that Congress can remove appelllate jurisdiction in any cases they wish and that means the Supreme Court has no authority supporting judicial review outside of their narrow jurisdiction. However, Article Six states as folows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This means that, while Congress can attempt to remove appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court on a specific subject, no judge at ANY level will be bound by laws made by Congress if that judge determines it to be unconstitutional. Judicial review does not have to be limited to the Supreme Court, it simply IS because congress has not limited appellate jurisdiction for the Supreme Court. Were they to do so, deciding judicial power would simply fall to the next court "in line"...removing appellate power from the Supreme Court does NOT remove judicial power from any lower court.

Now obviously Congress could simply de-establish every court but the Supreme Court (as they are entitled to do so under the constitution, only the Supreme Court is required by law) and strictly limit the Supreme Court to issues under their original jurisdiction, BUT doing so would mean judicial power would not be vested in ANY body, which would invalidate our entire justice system. Article 3 section 1: 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.. In other words, Congress can establish judicial courts, but they cannot themselves exercise judicial power.

In simple terms, judges (both in the Supreme Court and those in lower courts established by congress) are the only ones entitled to exercise judicial power (under Article 3) and may not act contrary to the Constitution (under Article 6). This is de facto judicial review, as any law will pass in front of the judicial branch at some level at some point, and judges are obligated in the constitution to consider the constitutionality of laws in their decisions. In other words, as far as I can tell, Congress could pass any law they wish, but they could not force courts to abide by it.

 

[Tom]

Thanks for explaining for Glenn1 why reading one part of the Constitution and ignoring other articles leads to mistaken interpretation.

Glenn1- I believe you completely misread Article III, Section 2. This section gives Congress the authority to decide if the Supreme Court will have original OR appellate jurisdiction in certain matters. It does not give Congress authority to eliminate the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, just if lower courts will have jurisdiction first, or if a matter goes directly to the Supreme Court.


"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,.."


Congress cannot take away this power simply by passing a law. It would take an Amendment to change it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: db
A rather amazing statement by the spokesman for the White House:


"[Eric Brewer]: But isn?t it the Supreme Court that?s supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?

"[Tony Snow]: No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself."
link

All hail Dictator Bush

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
What Snow and others like him want is to remove the checks and balances which keep things such as abortion legal....etc. He wants mob rule because a mob can be more easily swayed then a panel of educated judges.

In this case, the nuts run the asylum anyway. Not like you don't pick judges straight out of this "mob".

BTW, didn?t Snow merely tell us that the President also is required to uphold the constitution? I don?t get where in his statement that he?s attacking the judiciary as you guys so gleefully rave over.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Tony Snow MAY be right on the point of signing statements (although they haven't been really tested to my knowledge), but in typical Republican fashion, he wasn't able to MAKE that point without taking it to the extreme. Suggesting that the President's "right" to issue signing statements somehow makes him the only person capable or empowered to decide what is constitutional and what is not was a LITTLE extreme of a position to take given the question.

speaking of taking it to the extreme, i guess you forgot to read this part:

So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution

Originally posted by: Tom
Thanks for explaining for Glenn1 why reading one part of the Constitution and ignoring other articles leads to mistaken interpretation.

Glenn1- I believe you completely misread Article III, Section 2. This section gives Congress the authority to decide if the Supreme Court will have original OR appellate jurisdiction in certain matters. It does not give Congress authority to eliminate the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, just if lower courts will have jurisdiction first, or if a matter goes directly to the Supreme Court.


"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,.."


Congress cannot take away this power simply by passing a law. It would take an Amendment to change it.

actually, the Court has recognized that congress may deprive it of jurisdiction. for example, though the federal court system has extensive diversity jurisdiction at it's constitutional limits:

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.

however, you can't get into federal court unless the amount in controversy is large enough. and there is always some sentiment in congress to do away with diversity jurisdiction completely.

as another example, federal question cases

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

before the civil war could not get into federal court. congress has expanded the jurisdiction of those to their constitutional limits, however.

this is because of:

with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make

and because, if congress has the ability to create lower article 3 courts,

in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish

it has the power to regulate them (including jurisdiction).

 

[KlokWyze]

big surprise, how does their behaviour of the last 5 years differ from this statement?