Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

[A18]

Article III, Section 2.

... In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. ...

It has been argued by some that the "Exceptions" language would allow Congress to add to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Discuss.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Barring a convincing argument with documentary evidence to the contrary, I would say no.  To me the intent is avoid having the Supreme Court having its business clogged up with appeals of routine cases by enabling certain classes of cases to be settled at a lower level without referral to the Supreme Court.  Given the delay caused by poor transportation which the Supreme Court was afflicted with in the 18th century, the speedy execution of Justice would have been hampered if people could appeal minor infractions of the law all the way to the highest court.  Note that Congress occassionally makes use of this power to speed appeals of certain laws it anticpates will be controversial by having them bypass the intermediate courts.

[Emsworth]

The clause appears to allow Congress to make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, but not additions to the Court's original jurisdiction.

[A18]

The idea is that rather than remaining appellate, the Congress is making it original.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course, given how busy the Court is already, even if were constitutional, why on earth would you want to add to its Original Jurisdiction?

[Emsworth]

The idea is that rather than remaining appellate, the Congress is making it original.

Yes, I understand that argument.

It seems that the text of the Constitution will bear both interpretations. It can be argued that, when Congress makes an "exception" to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, it removes the case from the Court's jurisdiction entirelly. It can also be argued that, when Congress makes an "exception," the jurisdiction is not extinguished, but merely becomes original. When the text of the Constitution can be reasonably interpreted in two different ways, then the manner supported by precedent is to be preferred. Stare decisis clearly supports the view that the Court's original jurisdiction cannot be expanded by Congress.