Congress should not get to seat its own checks and balances, and it doesn't particularly matter if Congress is only allowed to establish and ordain inferior courts to that of the Supreme Court, if they already effectively establish and ordain the Supreme Court's delegations - and thereby its power.
WTF do they even let people online
Supreme Court Justices are, "nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate". The President is appointed by Congress through the Electoral College. Congress seats its own checks and balances by direct and proxy.
You should allow people to think of you as an idiot, rather than vomit on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
I'm not going to ban you right now because (unlike with the other account) I didn't see a lot of this in your history—but please don't do it again.
Is it that you don't see the linkage between the text of Article III and Marbury's famous line, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"? Because jurisdictio literally means "to say what the law is"
The fact judicial review is not in the constitution is not controversial.
Here's what Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts web sight says:
"The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...
In my experience, programmers do the same with law. Just because technical people operate in a world of constraints does not mean they are experts in the law. A little more humility would be helpful.
The website is intended for a lay audience, and doesn't constitute persuasive or binding authority in any case.
But the fact of the matter is that judicial review is found within the text with any amount of close reading. There is exegesis required, yes, but that exegesis is extremely straightforward and clearly delineated in Marbury, which I would encourage you to read.
But even without relying on Marbury, what exactly do you think "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law" means if it doesn't implicate judicial review?
The Framers clearly thought it meant judicial review when they wrote it, and they said as much when they enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789. Section 25 thereof: "a final judgment ... where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States ... may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States." The procedural posture is a bit different, due to the then-current presumption of parity between state and federal courts, but the fact of the matter is that the Framers clearly knew what "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law" meant, even if it's trendy for some people today to claim that they, themselves, do not.
It's a trendy take to say that judicial review isn't in the Constitution, and that may be superficially true, but it ignores two important facts that contradict that take:
(1) Article III's explicit grant of "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law"
(2) The Framers' own words in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which explicitly anticipates cases "draw[ing] in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, [where] the decision is against their validity" and reaffirms that such decisions may be "reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States."
It is very clear what "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law" in "cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made" means. And for anyone who has any lingering doubts, just look to how the Framers implemented it in the very first Judiciary Act, less than seven months after the Constitution went into effect.
You call out Article III, for example, so I'll focus on that. It doesn't say "we should have a Supreme Court and other courts Congress may establish." It says the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in them, and that judges shall be appointed. It isn't magisterial or clerical power. It clearly establishes the United States as a common law system. That's further reinforced by the use of the term jurisdiction — literally the power to say what the law is. It's clear that any and all courts established by Congress are "inferior" to the Supreme Court, which is a significant protection of judicial independence. It's also clear that Congress can't reduce their pay as retribution - ditto. And that's just the first section.
It's a much richer document than your previous comment gives it credit for.