Are rulings by our Supreme Court binding? Not if a liberal judge in a lower court disagrees

Most Americans believe that if the Supreme Court rules "X," that ruling makes X the law of the United States.  And that thereafter, the lower courts are expected to uphold the Supreme Court's ruling, eh?

Well before Donald Trump became president that was true.  But not anymore.  Today almost a dozen liberal federal judges in lower courts have issued rulings that contradict a ruling by the Supreme Court. 

Again, just so we're perfectly clear, this never happened before Trump won the presidency.

Moreover, these liberal lower-court judges make rulings seeking to prevent the president from doing something the Supreme Court has already ruled legal, not just in their own small jurisdictions but nationwide.

Again, I can find no evidence of this ever happening before.  That is, never before has a ruling made by a judge in a lower court been considered binding on the entire nation.  But now that's exactly what anti-Trump judges have done.  Repeatedly.

Example:  For 130 years, case law clearly held that aliens didn't have the right to sue the United States for the right to enter this country.  Instead, courts firmly agreed that deciding who may enter this country was exclusively up to the political branches of government--congress and the president.  Further, case law said the lower courts did NOT have the power to allow foreigners to sue for the right to enter the U.S.

But throughout Trump’s presidency we've watched one lower court after another create a right to immigrate and demand that the commander in chief surrender his power over sovereignty and national security to the courts.

The question of whether the president has the Constitutional authority--under 8 U.S.C. §1182(f)--to bar any individual or group from entering the U.S. should have been settled on June 26, 2018, when the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Hawaii, that the president has that absolute right.

Yet today a number of foreign nationals from countries on the so-called “travel ban” list – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen – continue successfully obtaining visas from the administration under the threat of incessant lawsuits. 

The Trump administration allowed the lower courts to win by watering down the moratorium twice rather than having the Supreme Court rule on the original one. One of the changes in the watered-down version was relinquishing the categorical ban on visas, instead offering waivers to those who claimed "special circumstances."  Predictably, activist lawyers immediately made that claim for every client.

Because the Trump administration keeps abiding by district judges’ nationwide injunctions, Democrats and Left-wing "activists" continue to block the president from using authority that the Supreme Court has unequivocally says he has.

The only way to block judges in lower courts from continuing this terrible practice of placing nationwide injunctions on national security policies is for the Supreme Court to say "Any ruling issued by a lower court that contradicts a ruling by the Supreme Court is automatically void."

Unless that happens, the Left will continue shopping these cases to the same liberal, law-defying lower court judges.