[Electric Graffiti]

“I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. “

That’s an understatement. The question is why doesn’t SCROTUS vacate these universal injunctions(unconstitutional edicts)?

[Ancesthntr]

“That’s an understatement. The question is why doesn’t SCROTUS vacate these universal injunctions(unconstitutional edicts)?”

---

Because you need a case or controversy ON THAT SPECIFIC, NARROW POINT. The Court traditionally only rules very narrowly, without making sweeping decisions on all issues that are presented in a case. So, for example, the “Heller” decision only ruled on the ability (or, as it turned out, the lack thereof) of the federal government (acting via the government of Washington, DC, which even exists only because Congress allows it to do so) to limit the right of a person to keep arms. It didn’t rule on bearing, it didn’t rule on particular types of firearms or accessories, etc., etc.

You’ll have a ruling like you seek when some pissant Dem-appointed District Court judge makes a sweeping nationwide ban on something that the President (almost assuredly Trump - it won’t take long, I’m certain) wants to do...and the President tells the judge to piss up a rope. It’ll then get elevated to the Supremes before long.

[BobL]

“That’s an understatement. The question is why doesn’t SCROTUS vacate these universal injunctions(unconstitutional edicts)?”

Very simple - they DO NOT have the votes for that. That’s why Thomas didn’t get to write the majority opinion and instead was relegated to a concurring opinion on Page 47.

The key is to get MORE CONSERVATIVES on the Supreme Court, and once that is done, the lower courts will be STOPPED IN THEIR TRACKS.