And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.

There are real questions about the scope of congressional power to regulate the Supreme Court. If Congress has complete control over the court's appellate jurisdiction, then there are no real limits as to what it could do to shape and structure the court, threatening the separation of powers. As James Madison said with regard to the Bank Bill of 1791, "An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the government cannot be just."

The Constitution gives our elected officials the power to restrain a lawless Supreme Court, protect citizens from the "sinister legislation" of the states, punish those states for depriving their residents of the right to vote and expel insurrectionists from Congress.

They are drastic measures that would break the norms of American politics. They might even spark a constitutional crisis over the power and authority of Congress.

But let's not be nave. The norms of American politics were shattered when Donald Trump organized a conspiracy to subvert the presidential election. They were shattered again when he sent an armed mob of supporters to attack the Capitol and stop Congress from certifying the votes of the Electoral College. And they were shattered one more time in the early hours of the next day, when, even after all that, hundreds of his congressional allies voted to overturn the election.

The ground has shifted. The game has changed. The only question left is whether our leaders have the strength, fortitude and audacity to forge a new path for American democracy - and if they don't, whether it is finally time for us to find ones who do.

A journalist opining on legal matters.

A citizen opining on the U.S. Constitution - citing it's exact language to delineate the powers invested in the separate branches by its dictates.

Separation of powers have a role.

Which he openly notes, while also noting Congress' expressed right to promote its own power over the SCOTUS' when it comes to certain adjudications of appellate law.

Again, never, ever, rely on journalists to accurately report on legal matters.

Again, never, ever, rely on conclusions made by a lawyer who hasn't even read the details of the argument being made by anyone quoting from the actual U.S. Constitution itself - and its expressed language supported by the same types of historical touchpoints (my imprecise word) currently being used in the majority opinions of today's Court rulings.

One lawyer's point of view who has actually read the article:

Whoops, sorry about the overbolding. Try this.

One lawyer's point of view who has actually read the article: