Latest news with #Jackson
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
SCOTUS birthright citizenship decision reveals deeper issue
Barrett orchestrated a complete smackdown of Jackson's dissent. The overtly hostile nature of Barrett's attack on Jackson reveals heightened tensions within the Supreme Court. Barrett's hostilities toward Jackson reveal tensions in Supreme Court In her majority opinion, Barrett repeatedly calls out Jackson by name, a practice often avoided by the writers of majority opinions, who opt to criticize "the dissent" as a general category instead. Justices accosting each other by name is rare - even in Justice Neil Gorsuch's own spat with Jackson just a few days prior, he was not this hostile. Jackson's dissent isn't heroic. It exposes big problem with Supreme Court. | Opinion Even as the dissents have tended to be on the dramatic side in recent years, rarely have they become outright hostile toward one another. However, Barrett in particular seems to be fed up with Jackson's liberal jurisprudence. "We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barrett wrote for the majority. "We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary." In a single line, Barrett simultaneously dismisses the opinion of Jackson while also levying a legitimate criticism against her dissent. Jackson advocates for universal injunctions as a check against presidential overreach, but trading in one branch's overreach of their authority for another's does not produce a balanced system of government. Opinion: Trump gets a win on injunctions, but will birthright citizenship order hold? In the judicial equivalent of the People's Elbow, Barrett uses Jackson's own words against her to further advance that point. "JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.' That goes for judges too." Barrett's critiques of Jackson reveal a growing tension between the court's two youngest judges, who in all likelihood will be serving alongside each other for the next couple of decades. Just three years into their tenure together, Barrett is already fed up with Jackson's misunderstanding of the constitutional role of judges. Barrett and Jackson disagree over the role of judges Today's argument reveals a stark difference in the judicial philosophies of Barrett and Jackson. Their chief disagreement on the issue of nationwide injunctions is whether they are the constitutionally proper form of relief against executive actions suspected of being unconstitutional. Barrett contends that "The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history." "Universal injunctions were not a feature of federal court litigation until sometime in the 20th century," Barrett wrote in her majority opinion. "Yet such injunctions remained rare until the turn of the 21st century, when their use gradually accelerated." Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The primary dissent, authored by Justice Sonya Sotomayor and signed on to by all three liberal justices, charges that "By stripping all federal courts, including itself, of that power, the Court kneecaps the Judiciary's authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies." Jackson filed a separate dissenting opinion, in addition to her joining of Sotomayor's, which goes further. "In a constitutional Republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the Executive to follow the law -- and it must," Jackson wrote in her dissent. "Made up of 'free, impartial, and independent' judges and justices, the Judiciary checks the political branches of Government by explaining what the law is and 'securing obedience' with it." Both dissents insist this decision gives the executive branch unbound authority to act unconstitutionally without any check against it. But it's not as if universal injunctions are the only option for relief. As the conservatives in the majority highlight, traditional class action lawsuits offer relief in a similar way to these injunctions, but with a higher procedural burden than sweeping judicial orders. The issue with injunctions is that they are a blunt instrument, often used in cases that require a scalpel. The conservatives on the court understand that these orders exceed the constitutional role of judges and are willing to rein them in because of that. The liberal justices are comfortable with combating executive overreach with judicial overreach. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Health
- Powys County Times
Woman airlifted from Llanymynech raises funds for rescuers
A woman who was airlifted from a field on the Powys border is now hoping to raise money for her lifesavers. Carla Jackson, a group finance manager and company secretary with the TG Group, was flown to safety by an air ambulance after a serious accident in Llanymynech in 2005. Now, as she marks the 20th anniversary of the dramatic rescue, she is taking on her longest-ever run to raise money for the County Air Ambulance HELP Appeal. Ms Jackson said: "The air ambulance receives no government funding. "They were there when I needed them, and I want to do my part to make sure they're there for others. "This challenge is about pushing my own limits to support an incredible cause." She will take part in the Gower Peninsula Ultra Challenge, a 100km endurance event along the South Wales coast, on July 19. The HELP Appeal funds the construction and maintenance of helipads at hospitals and air bases across the UK, supporting critical emergency infrastructure. Ms Jackson also suffered a separate brain injury two years ago and described the run as a way to give back on the 20th anniversary of her original rescue. TG Group said it was proud of Ms Jackson's determination and is supporting her fundraising efforts. The HELP Appeal is the only UK charity dedicated to funding helipads at hospitals and air ambulance bases.
5 hours ago
- Politics
Takeaways from the Supreme Court's term: largely good news for Trump
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has been very good to President Donald Trump lately. Even before he won a new term in the White House, the court eliminated any doubt about whether Trump could appear on presidential ballots, then effectively spared him from having to stand trial before the 2024 election on criminal charges he tried to overturn the 2020 election. That same ruling spelled out a robust view of presidential power that may well have emboldened Trump's aggressive approach in his second term. In the five months since Trump's inauguration, the court has been largely deferential to presidential actions, culminating in Friday's decision to limit the authority of federal judges who have sought to block Trump initiatives through nationwide court orders. The decisions from a court that includes three justices Trump appointed during his first term have provoked a series of scathing dissents from liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They accuse the conservative supermajority of kowtowing to the president and putting the American system of government 'in grave jeopardy,' as Jackson wrote Friday. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, author of the opinion limiting nationwide injunctions, responded to Jackson's 'startling line of attack' by noting that she 'decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.' To be sure, the court has not ruled uniformly for Trump, including by indefinitely stopping deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador without giving people a reasonable chance to object. But Trump's victories have dwarfed his losses. Here are some takeaways from the Supreme Court's term: That's where the court deals with cases that are still in their early stages, most often intervening to say whether a judge's order should be in effect while the case proceeds through the courts. While preliminary, the justices' decisions can signal where they eventually will come out in the end, months or years from now. Emergency orders are generally overshadowed by decisions the justices issued in the cases they heard arguments between last fall and the spring. Almost since the beginning of Trump's second term, the court's emergency docket has been packed with appeals from his administration. For a while, the justices were being asked to weigh in almost once a week as Trump pushed to lift lower court orders slowing his ambitious conservative agenda. Trump scored a series of wins on issues ranging from the revocation of temporary legal protections for immigrants to Elon Musk's dramatic cost cutting at the Department of Government Efficiency. And that was before Friday's decision on nationwide injunctions, court orders that prevent a policy from taking effect anywhere. Many of the recent orders are in line with the conservatives' robust view of executive power. The three liberal justices dissented from each of three cases involving transgender rights or LGBTQ issues more generally. Trump has moved aggressively to roll back the rights of transgender people and the court has rebuffed attempts to stop him. In another emergency appeal, the court's conservatives allowed a ban to take effect on transgender members of the military, even after lower courts had found the policy unconstitutional. In mid-June, Roberts wrote the opinion for a conservative majority that upheld Tennessee's ban on certain medical treatment for transgender youth, rejecting arguments that it amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. The decision probably will affect a range of other pending court cases on transgender issues, including those involving access to health care, participation on sports teams and gender markers on birth certificates. On the final day of decisions, the justices ruled in favor of Maryland parents with religious objections who don't want their children exposed to public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The case was about religious freedom, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the decision 'threatens the very essence of public education.' In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court's decision in favor of Guantanamo Bay detainees 'will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.' That opinion was written in an era when conservatives were sometimes on the losing end of the term's biggest cases. Times have changed, as has the tilt of the court. 'It is important to recognize that the Executive's bid to vanquish so-called 'universal injunctions' is, at bottom, a request for this court's permission to engage in unlawful behavior,' Jackson wrote Friday. Objecting to the court's order in yet another emergency appeal to allow the resumption of quick deportations to third countries, Sotomayor wrote that her conservative colleagues were 'rewarding lawlessness.' Sotomayor also dissented from the transgender health care decision. 'It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them,' she wrote. The court left for its long summer break without any retirements, despite talk that one of older conservative justices, 77-year-old Clarence Thomas or 75-year-old Samuel Alito, might step aside so that Trump could keep a conservative in their seats for the next few decades. But with Republicans in control of the Senate at least through the end of 2026, a justice could retire a year from now with sufficient time to have his replacement confirmed. Thomas, the longest-serving of the current justices, has just under three years to go until he would become the longest-serving justice in U.S. history. The record is held by William O. Douglas, whose 36-year tenure began during FDR's presidency in 1939 and ended when Gerald Ford was in the White House, in 1975.
Politico
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
Justices' nerves fray in Supreme Court's final stretch
The Supreme Court's nine justices often like to tout their camaraderie, hoping to dispel public perceptions that they are locked into warring ideological camps. But the final rulings of the current term — issued from the bench during a tense 90-minute court session Friday — revealed some acrimonious, even acidic, exchanges. Most of the rhetorical clashes pitted the court's conservative and liberal wings against each other in politically polarized cases. But not all of the spats fell squarely along ideological lines. On the whole, they paint a picture of nine people who are deeply divided over the law and the role of the courts — and who also may just not like each other very much. The most acerbic feud Friday came in the biggest ruling of the year: the justices' 6-3 decision granting the Trump administration's bid to rein in the power of individual district court judges to block federal government policies nationwide. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court's entire conservative supermajority, responded sharply to a pair of dissents, one written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But Barrett reserved her most pointed barbs for Jackson. Barrett, a Trump appointee and the second-most-junior justice, accused Jackson, a Biden appointee and the court's most junior member, of mounting 'a startling line of attack' not 'tethered … to any doctrine whatsoever.' According to Barrett, Jackson was promoting 'a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' and she was skipping over legal issues she considers 'boring.' 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' wrote Barrett. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Well, maybe not 'only' that. While insisting she wouldn't 'dwell' on Jackson's arguments, Barrett wound up devoting nearly 900 words to them, capping the passage off with another zinger suggesting hypocrisy on Jackson's part. 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: 'Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,'' Barrett wrote. 'That goes for judges too.' For her part, Jackson accused Barrett and the other conservatives of an obsession with 'impotent English tribunals' and of blessing a 'zone of lawlessness.' 'What the majority has done is allow the Executive to nullify the statutory and constitutional rights of the uncounseled, the underresourced, and the unwary, by prohibiting the lower courts from ordering the Executive to follow the law across the board,' Jackson declared. Although 42 percent of the court's opinions this term were unanimous, this week's decisions continued the pattern of liberals often finding themselves on the losing end of 6-3 rulings in the hardest-fought and most impactful cases. So, perhaps it's no surprise that the liberal justices are the ones to often paint the court's decisions in grave, even apocalyptic, terms. The court's 6-3 decision that public-school parents must be allowed to pull their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ-themed books produced a fiery dissent from Sotomayor. She predicted a 'nightmare' for school as parents choose to pull their kids out of lessons they disapprove of on topics ranging from evolution to the role of women in society to vaccines. The ensuing 'chaos' and self-censorship by schools threatens to end American public education as we know it, she said. 'Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The reverberations of the Court's error will be felt, I fear, for generations.' While the liberal justices more often found themselves on the losing side than the conservatives, some members of the court's right flank also found occasion to voice grave concerns about select rulings. Consider a decision issued Friday involving an FCC fund that supports broadband access in rural areas. It's not exactly a hot culture-war issue. And a mixed coalition of three conservatives and three liberals joined together to uphold the fund. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, animated by the case's implications for the balance of power between Congress and federal agencies, filed a lengthy dissent that accused the majority of embarking on a judicial 'misadventure' and deploying 'ludicrously hypothetical' reasoning. The majority, he wrote, 'defies the Constitution's command' that power be divided among the branches. A day earlier, Gorsuch had exchanged sharp words with Jackson — but this time, he was in the majority. Jackson, in an opinion joined by the court's other two liberals, suggested the conservative majority's decision allowing South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program there amounted to a continuation of the long campaign by racists and segregationists in the South to resist federal civil rights laws enacted in the wake of the Civil War. 'A century and a half later, the project of stymying one of the country's great civil rights laws continues,' Jackson wrote. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, dismissed the inflammatory claim out of hand, calling it 'extravagant.' Jackson has also used stark language in dissents from rulings on the court's emergency docket. In April, she predicted 'devastation' from the Trump administration suspension of education grants and called the court's decision to allow the cuts to proceed 'in equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate.' One of the major surprises Friday was the court's decision to pass up issuing any opinion in the term's big redistricting case. It involved the Louisiana legislature's creation of a second majority-Black congressional district after courts ordered the legislature to do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Although the justices heard the case in March, they ordered that the case be reargued, likely this fall. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing alone, scolded his colleagues for copping out despite a full round of legal briefing and 80 minutes of oral arguments on the issue. 'The Court today punts without explanation,' Thomas complained. The way to resolve the Louisiana case 'should be straightforward,' the court's longest-serving justice said. Then he stepped up his rhetoric another notch, declaring that the court had not only failed to explain its action but that it defied any logic whatsoever. 'The Court … inexplicably schedules these cases for reargument,' Thomas griped. The consternation displayed by the justices this week came as one of their former colleagues, retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, issued an impassioned warning that 'hostile, fractious discourse' was tearing at the fabric of American democracy. To be sure, there are no outward signs the acrimony at the high court has reached the levels it did in 2022, following POLITICO's publication of a draft of the court's not-yet-released opinion overturning the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said then that trust at the court was 'gone forever.' And after that bombshell ruling was officially published, Justice Elena Kagan accused the court of making political decisions. The Obama appointee said only 'time will tell' if the justices could again find 'common ground.' While the justices' disagreement in the major cases often seemed stark this week, there were occasional efforts to bridge the divide. Playing a role he often adopts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed eager to downplay the practical significance of the court's ruling barring nationwide injunctions in most instances. Kavanaugh said the district court injunctions at issue are rarely 'the last word' in high-profile fights over executive power. Those battles ultimately end up at the Supreme Court, he argued, so whether a district court's injunction is enforced nationwide or not matters less than what the justices decide on the slew of emergency applications landing on their so-called shadow docket. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass,' wrote Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee. During speaking appearances last month, Chief Justice John Roberts insisted the justices aren't at each other's throats, despite the tone of some of the opinions that come out as the court winds down its work for the term. 'I'm sure people listening to the news or reading our decisions, particularly decisions that come out in May and June, maybe think, 'Boy, those people really must hate each other. They must be at hammer and tong the whole time,'' the chief justice told an audience in Buffalo. However, Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, also said the court's summer recess is a welcome respite not only from work, but from colleagues. 'That break is critical to maintaining a level of balance,' he said. Roberts, who traditionally teaches a legal course overseas during the summer and lounges at his vacation home in Maine, has one more official gig before he heads out. He's scheduled to speak Saturday morning to a judicial conference in North Carolina, where he'll have a chance to offer his latest thoughts on whether his colleagues are grating on each other or getting along.
Calgary Herald
9 hours ago
- Business
- Calgary Herald
After 21 years, Crave Cupcakes plans to relocate from original location on Kensington, adding coffee shop
One of Calgary's popular sweet spots, Crave Cupcakes, will be moving from their original location on 1107 Kensington Road NW, to a new home down the street in Hillhurst. Article content Crave Cupcakes co-owner, Carolyne McIntyre Jackson, said they plan to move from their original location of the last 21 years, to a new space on 112 18 A Street NW. Article content Article content She said the store is not closing, they're simply moving a kilometre down the road. Article content Article content 'We should be open, I think, close to the end of August,' she said. 'We're hoping to be out and open, kind of before the September long-weekend.' Article content Article content The decision came due to their current location's building undergoing a massive renovation over the last few years. Jackson said another key factor is finding a space that would allow customers easier access, and more opportunities for parking. Article content 'We were looking at if we could do a pop-up somewhere and make it more convenient for people to park, and then we found this new space being built,' Jackson said. Article content This new shift coincides with the opening of their newest location in B.C., which already started serving customers as of Wednesday. Article content 'We just opened a store in Kelowna, and along with that, a new coffee brand,' Jackson said. 'This new [Hillhurst] location is actually giving us the opportunity to open up a coffee shop. Article content Article content 'So, There'll be Cece's Coffee, right beside Crave. The two locations are going to be together, but a little bit separate.' Article content This is their newest location since opening a store in Saskatoon 12 years ago. Jackson said both her and her sister had a purposeful pause on the business while they took the time to raise their kids and perfect their craft. Article content 'Then we felt like it was our time to expand outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and we decided to go into B.C.,' she siad. 'We're super excited to be there.' Article content Article content Jackson said she is excited to bring this new community space to Calgary, alongside an expanded cafe menu. From scones, muffins, and even Fun Chunky Cookies, she said they are excited to share their new flavours.
