Sorry, you only get a close but certainly no cigar. The NYT article has to do with a supreme court decision regarding the interpretation and wording of a law. The SC ruled on its interpretation of that law and the Democrats considered to rewrite the exact wording of the law to remove the court's objection. The Democrats did not tell the court they cannot interpret the law nor that they cannot interpret the constitution. Both parties have in the past and will continue to disagree with SC decisions. This proposal from KIng, Yoho et al is entirely different in that it attempts to prohibit the courts from being one part of our three part government. It is frankly not defensible as a constitutional bill. What would King propose when the courts rule that his law on what the courts can rule upon is unconstitutional. He will have to have another law that says the courts can't rule his law was unconstitutional, and down the rabbit hole we go.