Nope. Per the Constitution, in suits by the States, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. That rather assumes the USSC respects the Constitution — I'm inclined to believe that they do not; several examples:
- [1942] Wickard v. Filburn — Which holds that the ability to regulate interstate commerce covers interstate commerce.
- [2005] GONZALES V. RAICH &mdash Which holds that the ability to regulate interstate commerce, and intrastate commerce via Wickard, extends to non-commerce.
- [1919] Schenck v. United States — Which held that
congress shall pass no law
doesn't apply when Congress has a right to prevent
some substantive evils. - [2005] KELO V. NEW LONDON — Which holds that government imagining more taxes qualifies for
public use
under the 5th Amendment. - [2012] N.F.I.B. v. SEBELIUS — Which is predicated on the ability of the court to read its own meaning into things rather than depend on the text.
- [1973]Roe v. Wade — Which is predicated on the assumption that the states cannot be sovereign, making their own laws, but must bow to whatever the USSC says regardless of whether the Constitution covers the area in question or not.
I wish I were wrong, but Wickard has more than a half century behind it, Schenck almost a century, and Roe four decades.
That these egregious affronts continue to stand seems to me to be more than enough proof that the USSC does not respect the Constitution.
[1942] Wickard v. Filburn — Which holds that the ability to regulate interstate commerce covers interstate commerce.If you read Wickard v. Filburn, there was no actual commerce involved. Filburn was fined for growing wheat he fed to his own livestock, because by growing it himself he was potentially not engaging in the interstate commerce that might have resulted if he'd had to buy it.