This Article will address primarily the lack of textual and historical support for the Court's narrow construction of jurisdictional provisions that cause it to deny the existence of jurisdiction. In addition, the Article will briefly describe the lack of historical support for the Court's independent development of the abstention doctrines and their consequent illegitimacy. Both areas share democratic theory and institutional legitimacy concerns that Professor Redish will address, but let me respectfully suggest that these issues are best understood in light of the congressional thought underlying the Title 28 authorizations.
Donald L. Doernberg, "You Can Lead a Horse to Water . . .": The Supreme Court's Refusal to Allow the Exercise of Original Jurisdiction Conferred by Congress, 40 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 999 (1990), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/47/.