[Alter Kaker]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. My US Constitution, article 3, section 2 clearly states that in ALL CASES where a STATE is a PARTY to the action, the Supreme Court and ONLY the Supreme Court has LEGAL Jurisdiction. No Inferior Court has the authority under the Constitution to even hear the case, let alone rule on it. Tell the inferior court to pound sand.

That's a creative interpretation of the law, but a wrong one. The Supreme Court has always interpreted that clause as giving it - as opposed to Congress - the power to assume or delegate jurisdiction over state party cases.

This was stated explicitly by the Supreme Court way back in 1861, although the precedents the Court cited go back to the founding of the American judiciary. Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 U.S. (24 How.) 66, 98 (1861). Aside from running contrary to the law, your interpretation would be unworkable - we'd probably need 1000 Supreme Court justices just to handle the workload. Insane.

[eyeamok]

Sorry, but I will take the written words of the Constitution over the actions of a scumbag lawyer in a dress anytime. The State can force the issue by telling the inferior court to drop dead.

“That’s a creative interpretation of the law”

Creative?? How about a DIRECT QUOTE!!

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction