This isn't a would have allowed thing. It's a shall have original jurisdiction thing. It's one of those non-discretionary shall thingees that the judges all go on about, except when it applies to them themselves.
You missed the context. I was saying that having Original Jurisdiction gives SCOTUS the authority to review evidence vs. Appellate Jurisdiction, which doesn't.
I agree with you but SCOTUS needs to actually accept the case in order for all that to fall into place, which is why them rejecting Texas' case due to no standing is that much worse.
This isn't a would have allowed thing. It's a shall have original jurisdiction thing. It's one of those non-discretionary shall thingees that the judges all go on about, except when it applies to them themselves.
You missed the context. I was saying that having Original Jurisdiction gives SCOTUS the authority to review evidence vs. Appellate Jurisdiction, which doesn't.
I agree with you but SCOTUS needs to actually accept the case in order for all that to fall into place, which is why them rejecting Texas' case due to no standing is that much worse.