You're going to hear it a lot...

...so it's worth taking a closer look at a subject raised in comments by the Analog Kid, typically one of the more thoughtful of the right wingers who hang around here, and a usually reliable source for the latest GOP talking point. He cites Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution...

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

...from which he derives the notion that...

The only court that is the ‘equal’ of Congress is the SCOTUS. Lower federal courts are established by Congress and are therefore NOT equal and the Congress CAN assert their authority over them.

That's going to become the battle cry of the destructionists during the fight for the courts. It boils down to "We can make 'em, we can break 'em."

There's an element of truth there (in theory, the radical form of court stacking that the Kid describes, but does not endorse, in his comment could happen...to a point. The problem is that Congress can only create courts which operate within the bounds of the Constitution, which is in every case the authority of last resort.

Nothing in the Article III supercedes the Supremacy Clause, which holds all three branches of government and their various subsidiaries equal before the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The courts cannot be compelled to enforce acts of Congress or any other body which violate the Constitution.

The ability of Congress to establish a system of inferior courts to enforce federal law does not affect the fact that those courts are bound to measure every law by the supreme standard. Congress is not empowered to order a court to do otherwise. As established by the Constitution, our branches of government are separate, with an interlocking set of checks and balances that stand as a bulwark against tyranny by any of them - though collusion in tyranny by two increases the challenge for the third. Because each branch is established by the Constitution, and ultimately beholden to the Constitution, they are all equal before the Constitution, though each has defined powers which are denied the others.

Congress can certainly assert certain influence over the courts. The House initiates the appropriations that pay their bills, for instance, and the Senate has authority over the appointment of the judges. Similarly, the judiciary has some influence over the Congress, being empowered to strike down legislation which violates the Constitution, decisions that may sometimes compel legislative action.

Attempts to undermine the separation of powers, to unsettle the system of checks and balances, strike at the heart of the most basic Constitutional principles. They are the heart of the destructionist campaign to radically alter our system of government. This is a fundamental fight, not between liberals and conservatives, but between those who will defend our Constitutional system of government and those who would alter or abolish it. It's about whether a government of laws, rather than of men, shall indeed perish from the earth.

Which side are you on?