[Ken H]

I wrote: I would interpret all other cases before mentioned to refer to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party , not to the cases in the first paragraph.

Actually, as I reread this, you may be right.

Still, it doesn't make sense that Congress could govern the USSC in matters that the United States is a party to. It allows Congress to stack the deck.

[inquest]

Still, it doesn't make sense that Congress could govern the USSC in matters that the United States is a party to. It allows Congress to stack the deck.

It's more like shifting the deck around. There will always be a federal court to hear a case that involves the United States. In any case, that's not the reason Congress would be making exceptions to any court's appellate jurisdiction. Judicial activism has never been a problem in regard to federal laws, just state laws.