• nfh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    IANAL, but to my understanding, SCOTUS is defined by the constitution and given certain powers and protections, to interpret the constitution, mediate disputes between the political branches, and certain duties given to its chief Justice. Congress is given broad powers to set the laws, which includes details of how branches are run, like creating departments in the Executive, and setting the number of Justices on SCOTUS.

    If I understand Jurisdiction Stripping correctly, it’s not preventing SCOTUS from eventually reviewing the case, but a law that says they don’t get the first review of legal challenges. It could slow the process, at the very least.

    • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      Didn’t they largely establish that power themselves through Marbury vs Madison in 1803?

      That elevation / clarity of their authority wasn’t a massive problem until the last 10 or so years when they started going off the deep-end.

      • nfh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah Marbury v Madison found that congress can decide which cases SCOTUS reviews directly, vs where the authority of lower courts starts. But it’s not in conflict with the other principle from Marbury v Madison, that SCOTUS has the power to review whether laws are constitutional or not. If I understand correctly, at least.

        Before Trump, the worst issue the growing authority of the court caused was a shift from Congress making major policy changes, to SCOTUS. Congress changing that could be a change for the better in the long run.