Barrett blasts Jackson for ‘extreme’ dissent in nationwide injunctions case

Judge Amy CONEY BARRETT had pointed out words for her colleague judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, accusing Jackson of having taken an “extreme” position on the role of the judiciary.

Friday, by writing in his opinion of the Supreme Court on national injunctions, Barrett said that Jackson’s dissent contained a “rhetoric”, and she pointed out that the arguments of liberal justice were not worth much.

“We will not dwell on the argument of judge Jackson, who is in contradiction with more than two centuries of previous, not to mention the Constitution itself,” wrote Barrett. “We only observe this: judge Jackson decreases an imperial framework while adopting an imperial judicial power.”

The Supreme Court’s decision came within the framework of an emergency request from the Trump administration asking the High Court to end the judges issuing universal injunctions, including those that the judges rendered to the citizenship order of President Donald Trump.

Trump celebrates the limits of the Supreme Court on “colossal abuses of power” by federal judges

Associate judge of the United States Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, spoke to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation in Sim Valley, California, Monday, April 4, 2022. (AP)

Barrett, who was appointed by Trump, wrote that when judges issued injunctions to block policies, like those that the Trump administration tries to implement, they cannot apply the injunction more than the parties involved in the case. Barrett said that this type of order, often called “national injunction”, is beings.

But Barrett’s opinion has left many other ways, the complainants of which can request large forms of reparation for the courts, in particular by intensifying collective appeals or in state -scale proceedings.

The chief judge of the Supreme Court, Roberts, reigns in Sotomayor after repeated interruptions

Supreme court judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, included via Getty Images)

Jackson wrote that the national injunctions should be authorized because the courts should not allow the president to “violate the Constitution”. Barrett said it was not based on any existing legal doctrine.

“It offers a vision of the judicial role which would even make the most ardent defender of the blushing of judicial supremacy,” wrote Barrett.

Sotomayor, meanwhile, wrote in his own dissident opinion that the Supreme Court was “accomplice” by allowing the Trump administration to extract a perceived victory of the high court for the citizenship of the right of action.

The Supreme Court confronts citizenship of the right of birth: the liberals are reluctant to the argument of Trump to end the injunctions nationwide

The judges of the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor, and Amy CONEY Barrett, non-photo, organize a conversation with the moderator Eric Liu, co-founder and CEO of Citizen University, during a round table at the National Civic Learning Week forum by George Washington on March 12, 2024, in Washington, DC, (Jahi Chikwendiu / The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Sotomayor said that every court that had examined Trump’s right of birth citizenship so far has prevented Trump from realizing it. Trump played a “different game,” said Sotomayor, bringing the case before the Supreme Court without asking judges to analyze the advantages of his plan. Trump rather asked judges to weigh on the legality of national injunctions in general.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

The order of citizenship by right of birth of Trump would eliminate the law of 150 years under the 14th amendment which allows babies born in the United States to receive automatic citizenship, whatever the status of citizenship of their parents.

The decision of the Supreme Court always allows the high possibility that judges continue to largely block the Citizenship of Citizenship of Right of Windness of Trump, but with different legal maneuvers from the complainants and the courts.