Thanks for the civics lesson, M. Ted. I love civics.

I understand that the purpose of the section I quoted is to establish the Supreme Court's primary and appellate jurisdictions. I also see that the power Congress has in this matter is the power to remove items from appellate jurisdiction. What I don't see, not yet anyway, is why something removed from Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction automatically enters their primary jurisdiction. Why couldn't something simply be removed from their appellate jurisdiction and thus be removed from their jurisdiction altogether? (I understand why it would be a bad idea. What I don't understand is why it would be unconstitutional.)

Also, if you don't mind, explain how the Brownbacker bill would constitute a law respecting "an establishment of religion", and thus violate the First Amendment. Surely you're not saying that the bill would constitute an establishment of religion, are you?   

Thanks for your help,

Kent (away from home)