Having original jurisdiction does not mean that Scotus MUST take up a case; it means they CAN take up a case.
They might just want the lower courts to do all the leg work on it before they get hold of it.
Is ObamaCare constitutional?
Heck, I don’t think car seat requirements for children is constitutional, so you know I don’t think forcing me to buy insurance is constitutional.
I think the issue at the Scotus will end up being whether or not the required purchase part is severable with the remainder being intact EVEN in the case when Congress doesn’t specifically say so.
IOW, are constitutional parts still active if unconstitutional parts are excised?
That would kill the funding of ObamaCare, but some of the straphanger provisions would last: 26 year old on parents’ care provision, pre-existing condition provision, and the unrelated to healthcare provisions. jmho
Actually when the Constitution says that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in a matter, it means that lower courts do not have any jurisdiction to hear the case. IMO the lower court rulings are void. The only way a lower court could legally hear these issues would be if they were directed to do so by the Supreme Court.