That wasn't a persOnal attack. Quit being such a snOwflake.
It's only complicated to Liberals who want everything either overturned if it doesn't go in their favor or enforced it it does...by what was designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government.
The judicial branch has usurped powers it was never designed to have.
But that's how Liberals like yourself want it since most of your Socialist measures you want to impose on us never pass muster at the ballot box.
Again, thank you for the personal attacks.
With respect to the definition of jurisdiction, it is actually rather complicated, and that has nothing to do with one’s political predilections. Long-standing rules of jurisdiction give state and federal courts authority and power over a wide range of out-of-state persons and things. And, to the extent a court has jurisdiction to render a judgment against an out-of-state person, it has jurisdiction to fashion a remedy that will address the harm caused by that person that was the subject of the suit. That would include in appropriate circumstances injunctive relief as well as, for example, monetary damages.
I am not saying that national injunctions should become the order of the day, but they are not unheard of and are not ipso facto a usurpation or authority.