Forum: Author Hangout

Assuming they even agree to hear it. Sadly, they have been derelict in their duties. As they have original jurisdiction, they do not have discretion to say, in effect, "nah, we don't wanna" which they have many times recently.

The problem there is not strictly with SCOTUS. The US Congress gave the lower courts concurrent jurisdiction to much of what falls under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. This gives them room to refuse cases on their original jurisdiction because the lower courts can hear those cases.

I agree with you, the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction should not be discretionary.

The Congress cannot amend the Constitution or change its operation by statute.

True, but the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to set the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts.

Congress can't limit the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction (without resorting to a constitutional amendment), but they can and have given the lower courts jurisdiction parallel to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. This gives the Supreme Court a decent excuse for refusing to hear cases brought to them under their original jurisdiction.

There are very few (if any) cases that could be brought under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction that the federal district courts wouldn't have the jurisdiction to hear.

If SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, they have it, and no other court can have it.

https://www.fjc.gov/history/work-courts/jurisdiction-original-supreme-court

This is only half right.

The Supreme Court did not settle the question until the 1888 decision in Ames v. Kansas , in which the Court ruled that parties embraced by the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction could bring suit in any court with jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter.

This kind of end-run around the Constittuion is basically the entire current problem in US politics.

This is not an end-run. It also has very little to do with current US politics.

There is explicit Supreme Court precedent supporting concurrent jurisdiction that predates WWI.

Note: I agree with you that this concurrent jurisdiction is a problem and Supreme Court original jurisdiction cases ought not be discretionary. However establishing these things would require a constitutional amendment because you are not going to get SCOTUS to willingly reverse Ames v. Kansas.

SCOTUS has been wrong many times before.

There are only two ways to over-ride bad Supreme Court precedent.

1. The Supreme Court reverses itself.
2. A constitutional amendment.

You are not going to get the Supreme Court to reverse on concurrent jurisdiction. That leaves only a constitutional amendment.

This could be fixed by Congress expressly revoking concurrent jurisdiction.

This is theoretically correct. The probability that Congress would actually do that is approximately zero.

Congress can't overrule the Supreme Court decision on Constitutional issues, but it has the complete right to limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts. It could simply say that none of the inferior courts have jurisdiction over cases which could fall in the original jurisdiction of the the Court.

It could simply say that none of the inferior courts have jurisdiction over cases which could fall in the original jurisdiction of the the Court.

It could, but it has explicitly said the opposite, and that is unlikely to change any time soon.