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.
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.