[AaronInCarolina]

What kind of legal sophistry was used to keep this out of SCOTUS?

I don't think it is legal sophistry. I think you are taking a sentence in the Constitution out of context. If you read it closely, there is a key "and" in the sentence. Meaning that in the scenario that involves an Ambassador "AND" a state, then original jurisdiction applies. This is a boolean construction in which both have to be true for the original jurisdiction to apply. The clause goes on to point out that in all other "Cases before mentioned" (not involving both ambassadors AND a state), the Supreme Court acts as an appellate court, not original court.

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. 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.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

==If you read it closely, there is a key “and”==

There is also a key “comma” in the sentence. There are multiple entities, all being separated by commas. “in the scenario that involves an Ambassador “AND” a state” , you’re leaving out the separation declared by the comma. Dropping the other entities out, the sentence becomes;
“In all Cases affecting those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

It would seem to me that that “separating comma,” is quite important to the meaning of the sentence.

[Lurker]

You missed a comma. Boolean construction doesn’t apply.