We disagree on that point.
My point is that the content of a ruling cannot be dictated by Congress other than what is already prescribed under the laws.
I haven't asserted that Congress dictates outcome of a case.
I suppose you could argue that changing a law could rein in the Judiciary. But I don't think that is what is intended.
The primary power that the Congress and state legislators have is the making of laws. And making laws can radically change civil and criminal procedure, as well as civil and criminal causes of action. See, e.g., the reformation of the model penal code regarding the insanity defense following the Hinckley trial.
I'm not associating "insanity" with events of the Schiavo trial, but am citing Congressional action in the wake of the Hinckley trial to support the proposition that Congress has prospective power over courts. It also has retrospective power, and has impeached judges.
It has always been my belief that the general consensus is that the judges ignore the law when it does not fit their ideology. This is what I refer to when saying that changing the law would not necessarily rein them in. Take the abortion issue and the laws passed by Congress to control it only to have the courts toss those laws.