Chisholm v. Georgia
Consider the reaction of Georgia after the Supreme Court decided Chisholm v. Georgia. In Chisholm, it was decided that the State of Georgia did not have sovereign immunity to lawsuits and could be sued with or without its consent. This comes from Article III section 2 of the Constitution which states that the judicial power of the US extends to suits "between a State and Citizens of Another State" and "Between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or subjects".
So, in other words, the Supreme Court told Georgia, in a 4 to 1 decision, that Georgia was full of shit and should fork over the cash owed to Mr. Chisholm.
Georgia responded by adopting a statute declaring that anyone attempting to enforce the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia "is hereby declared to be guilty of a felony, and shall suffer death, without the benefit of clergy by being hanged".
A month later, we got the 11th amendment, which made it so the states do in fact have sovereign immunity when it comes to diversity lawsuits. Haha, take that Chisholm! There's a lot of disagreement on what the 11th amendment means exactly, but anyone that reads it as it is written, seems to think it means exactly what it says...no diversity cases against states.
The other ones seem to think it really limits lawsuits against the states themselves for all sorts of stuff. Atleast in federal court. When my textbook was written (very recently) that was the majority view of the court. I'm too tired to find out if the loss of Reinquist and O'Connor will affect the interpretation of the 11th amendment. But I have a funny feeling that Scalito and Roberto will probably have some sort of affect. Mostly, I think losing O'Connor is the big one here. I don't really know though, because I haven't checked to see who voted how in Chisholm. Lazy? Maybe...or Maybe I'm trying to get you interested enough to go wikipedia and look it up yourself you lazy freeloading bastard.
aLs

