Again, we're back to the same basic mistake. Congress can remove all jurisdiction from a
particular lower court, or remove appellate jurisdiction from the
Supreme court, but any case arising under the federal Constitution will nevertheless get into the federal court system
somewhere (see the description of the power of the federal judiciary at the beginning of Article III).
Really, if it were as easy as some people think, the left would have long ago passed a law saying 1)hand in your guns and 2)the courts can't do anything about it.
There is no authority for the proposition that Congress cannot remove a constitutional question from the jurisdiction of the federal courts altogether, although the topic is a subject of much debate. In the only case that directly addressed this issue, the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to restrict the Court's appellate jurisdiction. In Ex Parte McCardle (1869), the Court unanimously upheld Congress's power to limit its jurisdiction, stating that "the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words. What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any case." Although scholars argue that Congress cannot restrict the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to the extent that it intrudes upon the Court's "core functions," there is no question that Congress has more authority under the Constitution to act than it has recently exercised.
Also, I disagree that if it were easy to remove issues from the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, that the liberals would have done so long ago. We all know that the liberals have benefitted more from a strong judiciary and would not want to travel down the slippery slope of limiting its power. I think the conservatives have just been too timid to do so.