The SCOTUS just ruled that the United States Constitution is unconstitutional.

No. You're going a bit overboard here.

The SCOTUS did not rule on the facts of the case. All they did was to stay an injunction put in place by a lower court while the case wends its way through the court system.

Let's read the first paragraph of this latest ruling. And I'll add my not-an-attorney comments along the way.

The President recently issued an Executive Order regarding election integrity.

Yep. He did. I don't like the way the court is referring to this order, though. As a non-lawyer, it reads far too political to me. "Regarding election integrity" - to me - that gives too much weight to the order. It tips the court's opinion toward the President. I would prefer if they simply referred to it by it's number.

A group of States sued the Government in the District of Massachusetts, contending that the Order unconstitutionally infringes on their authority to administer elections. The District Court agreed and enjoined the Government from implementing the Order.

Nice two sentence summary of the case. No problem here. The states sued, the District court issued a preliminary injunction against the government, blocking the EO.

In doing so, the District Court rejected the Government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction over the States’ claims because the States lack standing to bring them.

The District court heard the government's argument claiming the court can't rule on the case because the states lack standing to sue. And that Court ruled against the government. It rejected the government's argument. That makes sense to me. The constitution gives the states power to decide how to run elections for Congress. Who else could have standing to sue if the President is believed to be overstepping his authority here, trying to regulate how elections are run?

The Government has asked us to stay the injunction, arguing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its jurisdictional argument, that the injunction is causing it irreparable harm, and that the equities do not favor leaving the injunction in place while the Government’s appeal is pending. We agree and grant the stay.

So the President asked the USSC to put the lower court's injunction on hold while it appeals the Judge's preliminary injunction. Keep in mind here that no one anywhere has ruled on the facts and merits of this case. This is all procedural arguing over a preliminary injunction and whether it should remain in place. The lower court heard a few brief arguments and felt the EO should be blocked immediately. The USSC heard a few brief arguments and ruled in favor of the President, which lets the EO go into effect while the President's appeal of the preliminary injunction is heard in the Appeals Court.

Apparently, the President appealed the injunction and the Appeals court refused to block the injunction while this particular appeal is pending. So the President took THAT ruling to the USSC, where his very special band of partisan judges could rule in his favor on this particular point.

So no one has yet held that the Constitution is Unconstitutional. I agree that this USSC ruling seems a bit odd. But this is Trump's band of hand picked judges. They don't rule in his favor every time, but they do what they can, particularly on procedural issues like this.

This also seems to be a pattern. Appeal every interim ruling that goes against the Trump administration as far as it can, delaying the actual case for as long as possible. Because these are truly weighty national issues, in this case literally pitting the States against the President, the USSC is feeling the need to hear every appeal. So this isn't a final win for this terrible EO. It's just one battle in the larger case. But it makes for good headlines for the Trump administration. Headlines that can be spread much farther than the real issues warrant. But we as a whole are horribly uneducated on the workings of our legal system and seem to be fooled at every turn about little issues like this and let the bigger case get lost in the onslaught of nit picking of details that goes on.

--Peter