The "Supreme" Court

 I'm confused about this recent Supreme Court ruling concerning birthright citizenship.

I kinda understand the ruling. The Supreme Court is basically dodging the question and saying that the lower courts need to just stay in their lane. That a federal court, other than the Supreme Court, doesn't have the authority to set a nationwide injunction, only a "local" one. Or one that pertains only to the plaintiffs that brought forward the case. Is this more or less what I'm reading?

So, a Federal Court cannot reverse or nullify an Executive Order for the nation. And if several states sue the government, then that ruling would only apply in those states because other states didn't jump in? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I can't be understanding this correctly. Do I have to be a lawyer to understand what the Supreme Court has decided?

I ask because IT SEEMS LIKE THE SUPRREME COURT IS SIMPLY STALLING. 

Look, do I think a lower court should be able to set a nationwide injunction? I don't know, honestly. If a FEDERAL court couldn't, it seems like it would undermine the authority of the court. It also means that the only way the Judicial branch of government can "check" the Legislative or Executive branches is via the Supreme Court. If lower federal courts can't rule for the Nation, why have them? Don't they help with separating out less important cases for the Supreme Court? I mean, the Supreme Court can't work all the time. Geez, give the Justices a break, eh? Sitting around in a robe all day listening to lawyers expound on the interpretations of the Constitution can be horribly draining. They need some time off. 

Maybe I don't understand our Judicial system. Does anyone really, though?

What pisses me off is that this particular EO is so against the Constitution. It's obviously unconstitutional and in violation of the 14th Amendment that anyone that can READ understands. No EO can counter-act that. The Congress would have to repeal the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court says that one federal judge shouldn't have the power to determine nationwide policy...yet they afford one man, a President, that very deference. If the Supreme Court is saying that one person can't make policy for the nation even if he is a judge, then Presidential Executive Orders shouldn't be legal either. And both of these interpretations weaken both the Judicial and Executive branches while strengthening the Legislative.

Maybe the problem is that the President is an elected position and Judges are appointed? So, theoretically, the President is a voice of the majority? Because that doesn't fly if a President doesn't require a majority of the Popular vote to be President. If he wins the Electoral College, it doesn't matter how many individual votes he got. 

Ugh, I'm giving myself a headache. 

I guess, I'll just give up on this and wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the actual EO. EVERYONE who reads the Constitution knows how this should turn out. 

I still feel the need to be prepared for a plot twist. 

Blah, blah, blah.

-Wy