USSC choosing what to hear was enabled by Congress via Judiciary Act of 1925. It can be repealed by Congress but it won't because people won't vote them out. The voters have been captured.
Who do you think should decide what the Supreme Court should hear instead?
Because the whole separation-of-powers principle strongly suggests it shouldn't be either of the other two branches, since they could abuse that to prevent the court from checking their own abuses of power.
But there's WAY more cases that want appeals to be heard than the Supreme Court can hear. Like 7,000-8,000 petitions a year, but only room for 100-150.
Somebody has to decide and it obviously can't be the people petitioning because they all just want their own case heard.
However, an independent court deciding what to review is the best check and balance against the other two branches.
Courts at every level turn down appeals. Otherwise every case would be appealed higher and higher and it would be unworkable.
Circuit courts work just fine for most cases, they're already courts of appeal.
There's no reason why the Supreme Court should be another "regular" appeal court one level higher -- that would just be redundant.
Rather, the Supreme Court is reserved for major constitutional questions, the ones over which circuit courts may be particularly divided or lacking in precedent.
So I think you might be confusing the role of the Supreme Court with the role of the circuit courts.
