[ad_1]
Newou can listen to Fox News articles!
Judge Amy Coney Barrett pointed out his words about his fellow Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, accusing Jackson of taking a “extreme” position on the role of the Judiciary Department.
Writing in the Supreme Court opinion on the national injunction on Friday, Barrett said Jackson’s opponents contain “rhetoric,” and she showed that the liberal justice debate is not worthy of much attention.
“We don’t get too attached to the arguments of Justice Jackson, which are conflicting with precedents of more than two centuries, not to mention the constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We’ll only observe this: Judge Jackson accepts imperial judiciary and reduces the number of imperial leaders.”
The Supreme Court’s decision, as part of an urgent request from the Trump administration, calls on the High Court to put an end to judges who issue universal injunctions, including those issued by President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
Trump celebrates Supreme Court restrictions on “massive abuse of power” by federal judges
U.S. Supreme Court Deputy Judge Amy Coney Barrett will speak at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation in Simi Valley, California on Monday, April 4, 2022 (AP)
Barrett, appointed by Trump, wrote that when judges issued an injunction to block policies, they were unable to apply the injunction more than the parties involved in the case, as the Trump administration was trying to implement. Barrett said that the type of order, often referred to as a “national injunction,” is a judicial overreach.
However, Barrett’s opinion has kept many other ways that plaintiffs can seek extensive relief from the court, including filing class actions and statewide cases.
After repeated interruptions, Chief Justice Roberts reins at Sotomayor
Supreme Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (via Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call, Getty Images)
Jackson wrote that a nationwide injunction should be allowed because the court should not allow the president to “violate the Constitution.” Barrett said it is not based on existing legal doctrines.
“She offers a vision for the role of judicial role that even the most enthusiastic advocates of the blushing of judicial hegemony,” Barrett wrote.
Meanwhile, Sotomayor wrote in her own dissent that the Supreme Court is “conspired” by allowing the Trump administration to extract perceived victories from the High Court over birthright citizenship.
Supreme Court takes on citizenship by nature: Liberals alk over Trump debate to end national injunction
Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor and unillustrated Amy Connie Barrett will have a conversation with moderator Eric Liu, co-founder and CEO of Citizen University, during a panel discussion at the Civic Learning Week National Forum at George Washington University on March 12, 2024, at Washington DC (via Images by Jahi Kikventon Post).
Sotomayor said all courts that have reviewed Trump’s birthright citizenship plan so far prevent him from doing it. Trump played “another game,” Sotomayor said by bringing the case to the Supreme Court without actually seeking an analysis of the merits of his plan. Instead, Trump asked justice to consider the legality of the national injunction.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Trump’s birthright citizenship order would eliminate the 14th amendment of 150-year-old rights that allow babies born in the United States to receive automatic citizenship regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
The Supreme Court’s decision still acknowledges the possibility that judges may continue to block Trump’s birthright citizenship order widely, but there are different legal manipulations on the part of plaintiffs and courts.
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and Fox Business, covering the Department of Justice and legal affairs. Email story tips to Ashley.oliver@fox.com.
[ad_2]Source link
