Perhaps we have a failure to communicate, here.
I think that you interpreted my objection to your assertion as a failure to consult your references. Let me assure you that such was not the case.
Rather, I was pointing out that precedent as you cited it can be completely excluded by Congress.
The quotes I cited, showed that Congress has the power to exclude anything other than "original jurisdiction" cases in the Supreme Court from all other courts as it chooses. In fact, Congress can abolish all courts except the Supreme Court, alter their procedures, exclude issues and laws or otherwise limit their jurisdictions as it sees fit.
The UCMJ was not specified in the Constitution as an "original jurisdiction" of the Supreme Court.
"Rather, I was pointing out that precedent as you cited it can be completely excluded by Congress." No, it can't. We aren't talking about civil legislation. We're talking about criminal statutes that MUST conform to constitutional limitations, like a trial by a jury for example. Where does a trial take place? In a COURT.
Think about it for a moment, for what you say to be true, Congress could then pass a criminal statute outlawing the broadcast of Fox News, and then say such a statute is unrecognizable by the Court. Essentially, you'd then have the FedGov incarcerating people without a trial because you've stripped the judiciary of the power to review the law.
A criminal state is inherently a statute that is litigated, ergo reviewable by Court. Judicial stripping is also known as judicial curtailment How can you curtail the judiciary from involvement in a criminal trial?