252(e)(6). General principles of comity or federalism do not override that express statement of Congressional intent, just as they do not override the general grant of jurisdiction' provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review precisely the type of question involved in this case. Cf. Verizon Maryland, Inc., supra, 535 U.S. at 641-42, 122 S.Ct. 1753 (declining to answer the question of whether federal courts have jurisdiction under § 252 to review state public service commission’s decision on payment of reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound traffic, because “ § 252(e)(6) ... at least does not divest the district courts of their authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the Commission’s order for compliance with federal law” (emphasis in original)); Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 323 F.3d at 356-57 (<HOLDING>). Surpassingly strange and subject to criticism
holding that federal courts have jurisdiction to review decisions of state commissions interpreting interconnection agreements at least where review turns on issues of federal law and that this jurisdiction is not stripped by  252e6 holding that federal courts have original rather than supplemental jurisdiction to review state public service commissions application of state law in interpreting an interconnection agreement holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts holding that state court with jurisdiction over  301 claim should have applied federal labor law rather than state contract law holding that federal courts have jurisdiction to review decisions of state commissions inteipreting interconnection agreements at least where review turns on issues of federal law and that this jurisdiction is not stripped by  252e6