Court stripping surprisingly not as sexy as it sounds

The House passed a controversial bill last week that would prohibit any federal court inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court from hearing cases challenging the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA was passed originally to protect states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; its constitutionality, however, has been widely questioned.

Opponents to the bill rightly raised concerns that this type of legislation could become "boiler plate" bill language, included in controversial measures to ensure the courts couldn't touch Congress' actions. It's a dangerous precedent, and it raises serious questions about the framers' intent vis-a-vis the separation of powers.

If Congress begins to dictate which of their laws can and can not be questioned, the people ultimately lose. I don't think anyone would argue that the courts are fallible - Republicans lately agree wholeheartedly - but for Congress to declare itself infallible isn't the right fix.

The GOP needs to remember that someday they might need the help of the courts to decide something in their favor. The fact that it might be their precedent that strips that option away, however, likely won't stop them from being the first to cry foul.