Apparently above Guest (thanks Bill D) has been thinking along the same lines I have. He posted while I was checking a reference, but I'm gonna post mine anyway.

The text of the bill (Senate version) is available as a .pdf at S520

1 ''§ 1260. Matters not reviewable
2 ''Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,
3 the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review,
4 by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to
5 the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Fed
6 eral, State, or local government, or against an officer or
7 agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or
8 not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that
9 entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as
10 the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.''.

Intent has little force at law. The LITERAL meaning of this act is that "God's law is superior to any laws, including the Constitution or those enacted by legislators."

In other words, if any Federal, State, or Local government declares that "Slavery is God's Law" - as was stated frequently during a long and troublesome era in our recent past, the Supreme Court cannot even hear a protest. Further language in the bill asserts that NO COURT IN THE LAND can hear any protest, since this bill posits "GOD AS THE SOVEREIGN SOURCE OF LAW, LIBERTY AND GOVERNMENT."

Who's God?

As is pointed out in several "analyses" of this proposed law, the language included would permit a "true Christian(or true believer in any other religion?)" judge to impose BIBLICAL (God's?) LAW (sovereign to any enacted ordinances) to impose the death sentence for sodomy and/or adultery, and/or lying, or any other "immoral act" found somewhere "in the Bible," since the proposed act places "God's law" sovereign to all other law. (Which God?) (Which Bible?) (Who's Bible?) NO COURT WOULD BE PERMITTED TO REVIEW THIS SENTENCE, and any jurist who attempted to do so would be MANDATORILY removed from office.

A couple of sites related to those favoring this bill cite Pat Robertson's statements from a very few years ago to the effect that those who act "according to God's law" (as Pat Roberson sees it) should be exempt from prosecution for murder of "those God doesn't like." With a sympathetic local judge, under this law, they could be, since no Federal Court would be permitted to review their sentence. They think that's a good thing.

The United States TALIBAN at work.

Of course, since it doesn't say which God local courts, say in Utah or Nevada, could rule that their God's law demands polygamous marriage, and no court could review the decision…

Since this is not proposed as a Constitutional Amendment, and since it has been established that the Constitution does give the Supreme Court the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, it is reasonably (although not completely) certain that they would rule this law unconstitional, should it be enacted.

If, as some hope, the current legislature gets the chance to pack the Court, they might not even accept a challenge. The Supreme Court CANNOT (usually) consider any matter not brought to them by a legal petition citing harm, so it could take a few years.

But lets just back up a bit. The authority of the Supreme Court to review acts of Congress was first formally enunciated in a decision by Chief Justice John Marshall, by unanimous decision of the Court, on February 24, 1803. (Marbury v. Madison). The authority of the Supreme Court to review state legislation, under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, was not unequivocally enunciated until Fletcher v. Peck, March 16, 1810. Language in this act would potentially invalidate both these decisions, virtually eliminating the Supreme Court as a recourse against any future acts of any State or Federal legislature.

6 In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the
7 United States, a court of the United States may not rely
8 upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive
9 order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other ac
10 tion of any foreign state or international organization or
11 agency, other than English constitutional and common law
12 up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the
13 United States.

To the extent that the US Constitution differs from "English constitutional and common law" it's pretty much eliminated(?). Specifically, any ammendment to the Constitution that has not previously been traced, in Court decisions, directly to English constitutional and common law is now rendered invalid. Welcome back slavery.

17 Any decision of a Federal court which has been made
18 prior to, on, or after the effective date of this Act, to the
19 extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from
20 Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title
21 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not bind
22 ing precedent on any State court.

This is, in fact if not in intent, a move to REMOVE THE SUPREME COURT and all subordinate Federal Courts as venues for appeal of any action by any local, state, or federal official, so long as they say "it's God's law."

So if the TALIBAN occupies and takes over their own township, and elects a judge, NO COURT IN THE LAND can review that judge's decision that murdering Christians is "God's law.?"

It does say that.

John