Here's the entire Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The entire Constitution is obviously available easily if you think it makes a difference.
Here is the relevant part of your comment:
I believe that when Alito mentions "regulate the Supreme Court", he is talking about the imposition of ethics and recusal rules, since that was being discussed in Congress. Your Article III quote has to do with a completely different subject: the Court's "appellate jurisdiction" -- the issue of what types of cases can begin in the Court and when they need to originate in lower courts. We both agree that Alito understands that topic. Those are two different subjects.
Nice that you actually deigned to answer some questions, though.
I don't really get your earlier comment, though:
Wow. You took the obviously authoritarian-leaning answer to each question and give yourself 4-0. This either reflects (A) what people on the left call disingenuous or (B) an absence of self-awareness. I'm going to go with both and give you -4 on the Authoritarian scale.
So, you choose some questions that you're sure will lead me to give "the obviously (sic) authoritarian-leaning answer to each," and I answer them honestly, and you think ... something. It's kind of centemptuous of you -- authoritarian, even -- to ask questions based on what you expect the answers to be. Intellectually lazy, too. Back in the old days, we liked to ask questions to get information; I really didn't know how you'd answer my questions.
But all of your questions belie something about you. You note closing beaches, arresting a violator of the beach closings, a phase out over more than ten years of internal combustion vehicles, and the question of whether the government should have the authority to ban appliances that use natural gas as examples of authoritarianism.
Which is true, in its way.
But it seems you would want to eliminate the lower case authoritarianism of the government using the best information available to protect public health and the environment -- both of which impact individual rights, I hope even you agree -- through the use of upper case AUTHORITARIANISM of imposing your ideological position that the government should never make any judgement on matters of science (in particular), but instead should leave everyone to make their own decisions about it.
So in your world, we would probably still have lead in gasoline, thalidomide would never have been restricted from sale in the US, coal-burning factories would be free to spew as much sulfur and particulates into the air as they want, ozone-depleting chemicals in aerosol sprays would be fine, raw sewage and mercury could be dumped into waterways with impunity, etc. Taken to the absurd, a defense against a murder accusation could be that you didn't believe cyanide is actually poisonous, and because the government is required to be agnostic on the matter -- ? (But now you have been convinced by the death of your spouse that cyanide really is poisonous, so next time you'll use arsenic
you'll never add it to someone's food or drink again.)
Is that about right?