The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says?

No, Congress cannot do that either. the exceptions that Congress can provide is extremely limited per Article III, Section 2 clause 2 because Congress cannot strip original jurisdiction. It has been rarely used in our past and given our political nature, it won't happen at all.

 

Yeah, but Marbury v. Madison wasn't original decided because of penumbras.

 

Check out "original jurisdiction". And note that congress can strip the court from hearing any cases involving, say, firearms.

 

I guess it depends upon how one defines 'judicial review', but for this layman common sense would seem to say that the 'judicial power' described in Article III would include the judiciary reviewing legislative products to see if they pass constitutional muster. Many if not do NOT pass constitutional muster on simple reading, but in order for any citizen to bring a case before the court costs a million dollars or more.

So I'm in favor of the general notion of judicial review, but I'm also cynical enough to understand well that Madison's idea that the judiciary would be the last bulwark against tyranny did not come to pass, at least in this day and age, the Brunson v. Adams case showing that clearly.

For decades the main role of SCOTUS is to enforce the status quo in a fascist system.

 

For starters, Congress cannot strip original jurisdiction. It can strip the court of any case or type of cases, but this has been very rare. The perfect example of court stripping is the 11th Amendment. But when it comes to interpretations of law, no member of Congress, no matter how conservative will strip the Supreme Court from hearing any enumerated right within the Constitution or our Amendments. Not a single one.

 

Congress can strip the court of the power to hear cases, say, involving firearms.