A new reform bill raises an old question about how far Congress can go to keep appeals away from the Supreme Court. My own view is that Congress's Exceptions Clause power is broad, but *not* plenary.
Many of us agree with Professor Vladeck that Congressional power to curtail the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and of Federal Courts grenerally is not "plenary." Unless there is a Court so radical, as to overrule Marbury, the Court will always insist that thst precedent is inviolable. By the same token, Gorsuch's urging that Congress needs to "be careful" in exercising its own Constitutional powers is a bit rich---This is after all the same Jujstice who declared that the Immunity Rule it pronounced is a "Rule for the Ages" a conclusion and a principle that finds not a single word in the Constitution. It is also the same Court that has essentially gutted the Civil Rights Act on the apparent ground that, according to Gorsuch, "there is too much regulation" of innocent citizens; while I cdertainly will read Gorsuch's book when it comes out, I do hope that it will be closely examined by serious scholars who do not vbelieve that the Court should be engaged in partisan politics and pretending not to be.
Schumer more generally said the Senate is going to look into court reform bills, so it is fine to argue that the No Kings Act alone is not the correct path. The concern is that this decision is noticeably horrible on principle, which critics like Prof. Vladeck seem to agree. So specific action is deemed warranted as compared to justice service as circuit justices or something.
I think the "essential functions" argument is interesting. I think it's a reach that the "one Supreme Court" itself does the trick. Nations can have "one Supreme Court" -- the supreme court in the federal courts -- without it being supreme on every matter of constitutional interpretation.
So, it appears to be some sort of separation of powers balancing test.
Also, interpretation of federal statutes is a basic function of the Supreme Court. Completely, leaving them to 50 competing state interpretations to me strips an "essential" function too.
Interpreting FEDERAL statutes is a basic function of the FEDERAL Courts. But the Supremes are equally bound by a Federal statute which requires them to uphold federal rules unless they are arbitrary , capricious or contrary to law. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to Act as a Super Legislature and to decide what Copngress did or did not do in its deliberations. This Court flatly refuses to even read the legislative history of the statutes it opines upon and so has no idea why they were enacted.
You say: "Whether the analysis supporting it is right or wrong, the immunity recognized by Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion in Trump is undeniably grounded in the majority’s interpretation of the Constitution."
If by "grounded" you mean extrapolating from the role of the President in the Constitution based on the modern world needs, then I can live with that. But if you mean, in an originalist sense, grounded in the Constitution as persons upon ratification would have interpreted it, then I just don't see how it is so grounded.
Is the Court a believer in a living Constitution interpreted to meet the needs of today's world?
“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” - means the judicial power is vested in the Courts, but equally and indistinguishably in the inferior courts. If congress used the Exceptions Clause to give appellate power to inferior courts, it would not be any less consistent with article 3 section 1 above.
The founders did not envision a group of 9 sages with perfect wisdom making decisions for the ages having been packed selectively by 1 political party with way out views, with a “federalist society’ grooming them to ensure viewpoint purity. They did not foresee political parties. During the time of john jay, the justices had little to do but rode circuit conducting actual trials. So if Congress found that random panels of appeals court judges were less biased and more representative than the Supreme Court, so much the better.
Great food for thought about jurisdiction-stripping. I suppose if Schumer was less interested in scoring political points, he might be well served by considering the suggestions you make as to where changes would be more effective.
Many of us agree with Professor Vladeck that Congressional power to curtail the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and of Federal Courts grenerally is not "plenary." Unless there is a Court so radical, as to overrule Marbury, the Court will always insist that thst precedent is inviolable. By the same token, Gorsuch's urging that Congress needs to "be careful" in exercising its own Constitutional powers is a bit rich---This is after all the same Jujstice who declared that the Immunity Rule it pronounced is a "Rule for the Ages" a conclusion and a principle that finds not a single word in the Constitution. It is also the same Court that has essentially gutted the Civil Rights Act on the apparent ground that, according to Gorsuch, "there is too much regulation" of innocent citizens; while I cdertainly will read Gorsuch's book when it comes out, I do hope that it will be closely examined by serious scholars who do not vbelieve that the Court should be engaged in partisan politics and pretending not to be.
Schumer more generally said the Senate is going to look into court reform bills, so it is fine to argue that the No Kings Act alone is not the correct path. The concern is that this decision is noticeably horrible on principle, which critics like Prof. Vladeck seem to agree. So specific action is deemed warranted as compared to justice service as circuit justices or something.
I think the "essential functions" argument is interesting. I think it's a reach that the "one Supreme Court" itself does the trick. Nations can have "one Supreme Court" -- the supreme court in the federal courts -- without it being supreme on every matter of constitutional interpretation.
So, it appears to be some sort of separation of powers balancing test.
Also, interpretation of federal statutes is a basic function of the Supreme Court. Completely, leaving them to 50 competing state interpretations to me strips an "essential" function too.
Interpreting FEDERAL statutes is a basic function of the FEDERAL Courts. But the Supremes are equally bound by a Federal statute which requires them to uphold federal rules unless they are arbitrary , capricious or contrary to law. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to Act as a Super Legislature and to decide what Copngress did or did not do in its deliberations. This Court flatly refuses to even read the legislative history of the statutes it opines upon and so has no idea why they were enacted.
You say: "Whether the analysis supporting it is right or wrong, the immunity recognized by Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion in Trump is undeniably grounded in the majority’s interpretation of the Constitution."
If by "grounded" you mean extrapolating from the role of the President in the Constitution based on the modern world needs, then I can live with that. But if you mean, in an originalist sense, grounded in the Constitution as persons upon ratification would have interpreted it, then I just don't see how it is so grounded.
Is the Court a believer in a living Constitution interpreted to meet the needs of today's world?
“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” - means the judicial power is vested in the Courts, but equally and indistinguishably in the inferior courts. If congress used the Exceptions Clause to give appellate power to inferior courts, it would not be any less consistent with article 3 section 1 above.
The founders did not envision a group of 9 sages with perfect wisdom making decisions for the ages having been packed selectively by 1 political party with way out views, with a “federalist society’ grooming them to ensure viewpoint purity. They did not foresee political parties. During the time of john jay, the justices had little to do but rode circuit conducting actual trials. So if Congress found that random panels of appeals court judges were less biased and more representative than the Supreme Court, so much the better.
Great food for thought about jurisdiction-stripping. I suppose if Schumer was less interested in scoring political points, he might be well served by considering the suggestions you make as to where changes would be more effective.