The thing that gets me is the word “before,” as in “Cases before mentioned.” That reads to me that it must be causes that have previously been mentioned in the Constitution. But it appears the current interpretation ignores that word entirely. What is the reasoning?
Mentioned before in the full text of the section, which I didn’t post before. Here’s the whole of Article 3 Section 2, with color coding to parse the related texts:
I imagine that each party likes the idea of having the SCOTUS available to weigh in if the other side goes too far. For example, judging the constitutionality of the ACA, or whether certain gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, or whether it’s constitutional to restrict gay marriage. Each party has had favorable decisions to one thing or another in recent years so they probably don’t want to pull too many teeth.
Also, I doubt you’d get bipartisan support to limit the SCOTUS too much, and whichever side pushes for it will probably be demonized by the other and lose political support.
It’s not like Congress is one unified entity that makes decisions for its own benefit, that very rarely happens.
Ah yes, the Founding Fathers’ idealistic faith that there wouldn’t be political partisanship; to the point where originally the Vice-President was the runner-up in the Presidential election. 
I hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but I kind of remember some talk about W. Bush stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over prisoner of war cases. Was that ever a possibility, or am I conflating the legal fight over Guantanamo with possible jurisdiction-stripping by the Congress?
That wasn’t jurisdiction-stripping of the sort under discussion here. The case you’re thinking of is Boumediene v. Bush, where the administration took the position (consistent with existing law) that Gitmo was simply outside the reach of the constitution altogether. That was the ruling by the intermediate court of appeals when the Bush I and Clinton administration interned Haitian would-be refugees there, so they wouldn’t reach US soil and become actual refugees. The Boumediene court overruled that prior law and said that constitutional rights regarding trial extended to Gitmo.
Thanks Tom. That may well be what I’m thinking of–the reason I asked because I do remember the phrase “jurisdiction-stripping” coming up around this general issue–but as I said I may be conflating/confusing multiple strands of politics and law.
That’d be the one! I think the podcast was called “More Perfect” from RadioLab.
Tripler
I listen to podcasts now. I finally joined the year 2005.