I think Pat Buchanan has finally achieved the rarified status, along with luminaries like Ted Rall and Michael Moore*, where my default reaction to anything he says or writes is automatic, vehement disagreement just because he’s saying it.
*Amusingly, I briefly blanked on Moore’s last name, but he is the #1 Google result for “fat liberal Michael”.
Update (1418): Kevin Aylward exerpts this passage from Buchanan and marvels at its novelty:
Congress should re-enact the Defense of Marriage Act and amend it to deny the Supreme Court any right of review. Congress’ power to restrict the appellate review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was granted in Article III of the Constitution for a purpose. This is it.
Actually, Buchanan is wrong here. He skips a rather important part of Article III–which is pretty short to begin with–the comes right before the part he quotes:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
So, if the courts rule that there is a 14th Amendment equal protection right to gay marriage, then it would be a matter arising under the Constitution, and thus not subject to restriction by Congress.