exactly. That's why it,so far as I know, has never been used. This might however be the the occasion when it is needed to save the Republic, if in fact the Court has been so corrupted as to threaten the existence of the democratic Republic. Congress could be very specific in passing a law, such as codifying Roe, and then stating within the statute itself. "This statute shall not be reviewable by the Court."
Jem, have you not been paying attention. This is exactly what everyone wants. Including presumably the Supreme Court. But way didn't they stay the Tx law until it can be heard? That screwball TX law is not only prima facie unconstitutional, but it goes all the way to prima facie nuts. Why did only 4 members of the Court recognize the great harm that could come from such a defective law being implemented while it was proceeding at a snails pace through the federal court system. My God, the incompetence on this Court leaves one's head spinning in disbelief. And now, because of the Court's incompetence, there's going to be a myriad of crazy copycat laws that will all have to be rescinded.
Of course. However issuing a stay on it's implementation until it could have been properly heard was what should have been done, considering the great harm that will come in the meantime from such a nutty law.
I'll look into what you've stated later tonight/tomorrow. But to me, this language was not intended to override the intent of the SC's jurisdiction. Similar to the right to bear arms can be regulated, but not, in effect, overridden by regulations and exceptions." The scope of "regulations" and "exceptions" can only go so far, otherwise they become 'laws' themselves, and not things that modify laws.
I'm not either, other than an unusual interpretation of Constitution language.
