Latest news with #People'sElbow
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.
USA Today
12 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court's birthright citizenship opinion reveals rising hostility, tension
In a single line, Justice Amy Coney Barrett simultaneously dismissed the opinion of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson while also levying a legitimate criticism against her dissent. On June 27, the Supreme Court put an end to universal injunctions, orders that allowed for federal judges to block executive orders from going into effect against anyone in the country. Beyond the merits of Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion, signed on to by all six conservative justices, the tone of her opinion was uniquely hostile against the court's liberal wing, namely Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 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. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
NZ Herald
29-05-2025
- Entertainment
- NZ Herald
‘RunIt' events under fire after tragedy highlights risks
Participants in a Runit event held in West Auckland. Photo / Mike Scott; Artist / Paul Slater THREE KEY FACTS On the Friday nights of my preteen years, you would find me in front of the TV watching wrestling. Repeating the line, 'don't try this at home' as I leapt from the couch, dropping my best impression of a People's Elbow on to my unsuspecting little brother.
Associated Press
28-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Associated Press
Gronk-a-Mania set to run wild over WrestleMania weekend
Rob Gronkowski grew up emulating his sports heroes in school, never shy about unleashing a Stone Cold Stunner or dropping a People's Elbow on his roughhousing friends. Yes, he pulled his punches a bit just like the real stars — Gronkowski rattled off wrestling favorites ranging from Val Venis to the bad boys of Degeneration X — but there was nothing phony about his love of WWE. 'We just loved what the WWE brought to our childhood,' the retired New England Patriots tight end said. 'The characters. It wasn't even about the fights in the ring. It was how awesome these guys as personalities were.' Gronk grew into one of the most supersized characters of 'em all. So it was of little surprise that the fun-loving, fearless Gronkowski's charisma and hulking muscles made him a natural fit as a WWE star. He hosted WrestleMania in 2020. He was provoked into jumping the rail and hit the ring at another WrestleMania after bad guy Jinder Mahal tossed a drink in his face. And yes, four Super Bowl rings are nice, but how many NFL stars can claim they were WWE 24/7 champion like Gronkowski? Gronkowski successfully won the only wrestling title that had the caveat of being defended against anyone, anywhere, any time. He would lose the championship after he was pinned in a backyard. Gronkowski is tag-team partners again with WWE, this year bringing the 'Gronk Beach' parties he threw at the Super Bowl to WrestleMania next month in Las Vegas. WrestleMania has soared for decades as a sport-entertainment attraction — last year's event in Philadelphia boasted close to 150,000 fans over two nights at the home of the Eagles — and will debut 'WrestleMania After Dark' for the April 19 and 20 dates. Gronkowski will throw his party after Sunday night's show. 'WrestleMania gets the same amount of people as the Super Bowl and they don't have all those parties that surround it like the Super Bowl does,' Gronkowski said. 'It was such a good idea to bring Gronk Beach to WrestleMania because of that reason.' While pro wrestling is built on the swerve — the art of delivering fans the unexpected — Gronkowski said he would not compete at WrestleMania, citing his brother's wedding on that Saturday night. 'I will not be in the ring at WrestleMania,' he said. 'I really wish I could possibly do something.' 'Gronk Beach' at Fontainebleau Las Vegas advertised performances by rappers such as Flo Rida and appearances from WWE stars such as Damian Priest and Tiffany Stratton. Oh, there's a standing invite for his old Patriots coach, Bill Belichick to crash the party. 'That invite will always be there,' Gronkowski said. 'Him and his girlfriend, the doors are wide open. He doesn't have to pay for a ticket. He'll full exclusive VIP.' Belichick, in his first season at North Carolina, knows his way around a beach. Belichick and his 24-year-old girlfriend Jordon Hudson shared snaps on Instagram of the couple doing yoga on a Florida beach. Belichick has turned into a bit of a media darling and social media sensation since his split with the New England Patriots. He clowns around and offers insights on 'The Pat McAfee Show' and even needled his former players at Tom Brady's Netflix roast. 'I'm all in for it. I'm a big fan of it,' Gronkowski said. 'It all started at the roast. The way he came out firing at his players. All of his ex-players in New England. It just was fun, come out, see him crack some jokes, show that personality that he truly has.'
