The illogical nature of national injunctions.

If a USSC Justice does not have the power to issue a national injunction, why should a district judge?

The high court is the only court under the constitution to have authority to provide any sort of ruling that would affect the entire country. In fact, the high court is the only court established by the constitution. The other courts were actually created by Congress under the pretenses that they represent districts and larger circuits.

But in order for such a national ruling to be decided, it requires a majority of the nine USSC justices. Meaning that each justice only has 11% of power required to produce a national ruling. None of them have the authority to make any sort of ruling on their own.

If you then fall down to the circuit court level (which should only affect one of nine circuits) you still need a majority of three random judges to get an initial ruling, which can then be appealed to the full court. So even if you are one of the three judges, you still may end up needing to be part of a larger majority to have your ruling take effect. Even then any ruling should in fact only be placed in effect for that particular circuit. Again, a circuit court judge can never create a ruling on their own that affects even the full circuit, much less the entire nation.

So if neither USSC justices nor appellate court judges have authority to make national rulings on their own, why then would anyone believe that the lowest level of a federal judge would have such authority? In essence being a district court judge would actually be a more powerful position than even a USSC justice if you are allowed (on your own) to set national policy even for a temporary time. Given the slow-moving manner in which the judicial system works, and how quickly things can change with full congressional elections every two years and other political factors, one federal judge can in fact hold up entire policies long enough that a change in the political scene makes the original law or policy moot.

Obviously, this was never the intention of creating district courts with district court judges. The fact that even USSC justices are arguing differently tells us how far we have drifted away from the basic principles of the constitution and separation of powers. It's amazing (and refreshing) that we have justices willing to actually diminish the power of their own branch. That tells us that adults are in charge, at least for now.