Perhaps you can address that point. Seems also rather clear to me. Please tell us why the Congress has the power to amend the Constitution absent a vote of the States.
For those who don't want to peruse the link, here's the relevant text:
Do you see what this pretended “law” purports to do? It purports to say that lawsuits against States can be tried in federal district courts!
But Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says that in “ALL” Cases in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court “SHALL” have original jurisdiction (i.e., the supreme Court is to conduct the trial). In Our Constitution, We delegated to the supreme Court alone the authority to conduct the trials of cases in which States are a party. We most manifestly did NOT grant that power to inferior tribunals. And Congress may not alter, by any pretended “law”, Our grant of power which was to the supreme Court alone.
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.
The short version is that the Supreme Court has agreed to dilute its original jurisdiction, through a series of cases that lack coherency.
In Marbury v. Madison, SCOTUS held that it was powerless to expand its original jurisdiction beyond what the constitution recites - as between the constitution and Congress, the constitution must control. This "rule" is obviously discarded when it is convenient to do so.
So you are saying that Title 28, Section 1251 giving Judge Bolton jurisdiction is unconstitutional?