That’s a fallacious interpretation. The Judiciary Act, as an act of Congress, can be amended by the legislative branch, and has been multiple times in the past, both to expand and contract the number of justices on the court - we’re talking 240 years of judicial precedent here.
Congress could, in theory, revoke the act, completely dissolving the court, and would still be within its Constitutional authority as long as it established one to take its place.
The founders saw just as much potential for justices to become despots as they did in the executive - it’s why they gave the power of impeachment to the Congress as check on both of the other branches of government, putting the highest power within the branch that most accurately represented the will of the people. Otherwise, they would have designated the executive branch as the establishing party of the court, or established it as they did Congress within the body of the Constitution itself.
That’s a fallacious interpretation. The Judiciary Act, as an act of Congress, can be amended by the legislative branch, and has been multiple times in the past, both to expand and contract the number of justices on the court - we’re talking 240 years of judicial precedent here.
Congress could, in theory, revoke the act, completely dissolving the court, and would still be within its Constitutional authority as long as it established one to take its place.
The founders saw just as much potential for justices to become despots as they did in the executive - it’s why they gave the power of impeachment to the Congress as check on both of the other branches of government, putting the highest power within the branch that most accurately represented the will of the people. Otherwise, they would have designated the executive branch as the establishing party of the court, or established it as they did Congress within the body of the Constitution itself.