I'm confused by what you mean. Congress can limit the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and inferior courts, what else is there?
Ex Parte Merryman was decided in the midst of extreme circumstances, for one thing. Secondly, it's still technically good law, it hasn't been overturned and courts still cite to it today. On a side note, it's a Circuit court case. Not quite as significant had it been a Supreme Court case, in my opinion.
Can it do so in a manner that moots any part of A3S2C1 save for those cases which fall under the original jurisdiction enumerated in the next clause? And if not, how do you figure the restrictions in H.R.958 do not encroach on A3S2C1?
So what? I'm aware of the meaning lawyers are wont to impart to this phrase, but nothing you have said implies it was good law in the absolute sense of being consonant with the Constitution, under which Lincoln was most assuredly justified in ignoring the ruling.
So, it is unlikely that, absent those circumstances, such a thing could happen again. It's good law in the the sense that it has not been overturned. It can be still be cited by courts and is still part of our federal jurisprudence. Simply ignoring a federal court ruling doesn't render it void, just as simply believing a ruling to be unconstitutional also doesn't render it void. If the ruling is unconstitutional then the necessary channels should be utilized to overturn the ruling. Until then, it will continue to remain good law.
By prohibiting federal courts from hearing some cases which fall under it. So nothing, then. All of which is constitutionally irrelevant. Who said it does? If a ruling is unconstitutional it is void ipso facto, and not only can be ignored, but must be ignored by anyone under a constitutional oath. Sure it will, as long as "good" is defined such that constitutionality is irrelevant.
Which merely limits a federal courts jurisdiction to rule on certain subjects. Again, this is authorized in the Constitution, under the clauses we have just discussed. But whether one person believes a ruling to be unconstitutional, even the President, makes little difference for practical purposes. Allowing the Executive branch to decide what is constitutional contradicts Marbury v. Madison and this country's long history of judicial review. You might find a "departmentalist" argument appealing, but the government has never adopted such a doctrine. The ruling isn't void until an authority with the power to say so, says it is. There is no such thing as being void "ipso facto." Taking an oath of office doesn't give someone authority to circumvent the judiciary.
No it is not. The clauses you cited grant no regulatory power over lower federal courts, only the power to create or, by implication, dissolve; and on its face the exceptions clause only grants regulatory power over appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS, which is not constitutionally problematic as long as there are lower federal courts able to hear those cases outside its constitutional original jurisdiction which Congress decides SCOTUS may not adjudicate. You have cited no authority by which Congress may prohibit existing lower federal courts from adjudicating any case meeting the A3S2C1 criteria. Unless it also contradicts the Constitution, I have no reason to care. People who don't understand the first thing about the Constitution can certainly be expected to think so. It does if the Judiciary is circumventing the Constitution. Otherwise constitutional oaths are meaningless.
I'm not sure how you can argue that Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" and "constitute" inferior courts, but cannot determine their jurisdiction. It seems like a fairly straight forward implication. Don't imply I don't understand "the first thing" about the Constitution, it's unbecoming. When it comes down to it, ignoring a Supreme Court ruling doesn't make it void, as much as you think it should. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution and that is the way in which this country operates. You can try and deny it if you like, but that is the way things work, even if you believe they should be otherwise. In practical matters, if you argue before the Supreme Court that A) it's ruling can merely be ignored, and therefore deemed void, by the Executive Branch, and B) it doesn't have authority to make a ruling on the constitutionality of a statute, you will lose and lose badly. I'm pretty sure even Scalia would disagree with you. I am not implying that that automatically makes the Court correct, but that is the way it is currently set up, despite your denials.
For what seems like the hundredth time, we are not talking about legislation that only modifies the jurisdiction of lower courts, but about a bill that restricts the Judiciary as a whole. If you'd prefer I said it outright, consider it done. If your intent is to be tediously repetitive, you're on the right track. I am not talking about how the country operates, I am talking about what the Constitution says, and it does not say SCOTUS is its final arbiter. Jefferson wouldn't.
