Goldsmith on judicial supremacy and universal injunctions

In my comments on the universal injunction arguments, I mentioned the prominent assumption or acceptance of judicial supremacy (really SCOTUS supremacy) by the Court (unsurprising) and the SG. Jack Goldsmith dives into this, concluding that the "government realizes that the price of getting rid of universal injunctions is to pledge respect to Supreme Court precedent so that the Supreme Court, at least, can ensure that government illegality can be stopped in full." That is, judicial supremacy is the cost of non-universality.

I am not sure that is the normatively correct answer. But it correctly describes the state of play in the odd posture and context in which the Court is considering these issues.