The Supreme Court DOES have original jurisdiction. If they want to hear this case they can. And there is nothing that Congress can do to stop them.
Under the Constitution, Congress is given certain authority to regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the original jurisdiction of other courts.
Were Congress to try to strip the Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction to hear these cases, then it would be over-stepping its constitutional bounds.
It it the Supreme Court that is not interested in hearing these cases on original jurisdiction. And the process of going through the lower courts is very helpful in that it sharpens the issues, often removing extraneous issues by the time the case reaches the Supreme Court.
But I just reread the clause, and it seems clear that the Constitution does not give the Congress a right to append a comment like 28 sec. 1251 (b) - it changes the meaning of the word "shall" in this context. The exclusivity seems implicit - but Congress is making the assertion that unless explicit, they have the right to open up the field to the lower courts.
The statute seems to thus twist the nature of the original statement, and in so doing diminishes the role of the Supreme Court, and appears to be redistributing power in a way not envisioned in the original document.
I understand your statement that it did not take away their right to try the case, but rather simply extended such right to lower courts.
With that said, then, what would prevent Arizona at this point from bypassing the 9th and simply going to the SCOTUS?
This is not a little case. If the Supreme Court "is not interested in hearing these cases", then what in God's name will get their attention? Debates over convertible debentures?
This is way beyond Mariana Pfaelzer and 187. THAT was a lawsuit initiated by private groups against the State of California. THIS is a lawsuit initiated by the FEDERAL government against a STATE over a duly debated law passed by the Legislature, signed by the Governor! It is a major initiative with International implications, and the sovereign rights of a State at issue!
Does it need "sharpening"? Do they have to wait till gunfire erupts?
I'm from Tucson. I can safely tell you that NONE of the things that have happened there in the last week EVER happened before --- thousands of Mexican irredentists and their sympathizers rioting for the "Right" to occupy American territory? A terrorist incident on Interstate 17 involving a blockade of the highway?
In 1965 this would have been a shooting war at this point. Seriously. Please believe me, I don't know where you live or have lived, but I can tell you that in Arizona, such a thing is very close now. It isn't a diluted, deracinated place like California or New York.