So then, this article of the Constitution means what? Nothing?
Why would Alexander Hamilton bother pointing it out then?
Is it being interpreted wrong, or just being ignored because of ‘precedent’ being set by earlier cases?
(don’t know.. Just asking)
I ought to add that I woke up at 3AM feeling sick, went to take some medicine and read on FR for 15 minutes waiting for the medicine to have some effect. This was discussed on a thread I didn’t bookmark, and multiple lawyers chimed in to say that any competent attorney could tell you that the case is going the right route.
I believe Congress & the Supreme Court have given the lower courts concurrent jurisdiction...but my non-lawyerness is at work. I could have it completely wrong.
Congress and the Supreme Court have colluded to provide joint jurisdiction between SCOTUS and District Courts for most of the cases where the constitution gives SCOTUS (and only SCOTUS) original jurisdiction.
SCOTUS has even turned away acting as trial court in State v. State cases. See Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976), where the Supreme Court denied Arizona leave to file the complaint.
That case also cites some of the earlier precedent. The gist of the justification for not taking original jurisdiction as the constitution demands is that SCOTUS is too busy and too important to take on trial work, what with all the evolution of the law in the United States.
Additional justification is that SCOTUS sucks at fact finding and conducting trials, so the litigants get a better product in a lower court.
As a counterpoint, one should be aware that Congress can increase the size of the Supreme Court, and that there is no reason the Supreme Court must hear any case "en banc" (all judges hearing the case and contributing to the decision). Trials are decided by single judges, and most appeals are decided by a panel of three.