The post 10 Exciting Santa Barbara Restaurants That Opened in 2025 appeared first on edhat.

Por Kaanita Iyer, CNN

El secretario de Estado de Estados Unidos, Marco Rubio, declaró este viernes que el Gobierno del presidente venezolano Nicolás Maduro es “intolerable”, mientras Estados Unidos continúa ejerciendo presión sobre el país.

Cuando se le preguntó sobre los comentarios de la jefa de gabinete de la Casa Blanca, Susie Wiles, quien sugirió que el verdadero objetivo del Gobierno con los ataques a supuestas embarcaciones de narcotráfico en el Caribe es derrocar a Maduro, Rubio respondió: “Pueden interpretarlo como quieran”.

Las declaraciones del secretario se producen mientras la administración Trump evalúa la posibilidad de realizar ataques terrestres contra Venezuela. El presidente Donald Trump dijo en una entrevista telefónica con NBC News, publicada este viernes, que no descarta una guerra con el país.

El martes, Trump anunció un “bloqueo total y completo” de los buques petroleros sancionados que entran y salen de Venezuela, aplicando una nueva presión económica.

Mientras tanto, Estados Unidos ha continuado atacando supuestas embarcaciones de narcotráfico en el Caribe, en lo que afirma ser un esfuerzo para combatir el tráfico ilegal de drogas provenientes del país.

Wiles declaró en una entrevista publicada esta semana que Trump “quiere seguir hundiendo barcos hasta que Maduro se rinda. Y personas mucho más inteligentes que yo en este tema dicen que lo hará”.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Marco Rubio afirma que el Gobierno venezolano es “intolerable para Estados Unidos” appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Friday sided against the Trump administration, keeping alive a federal lawsuit from immigration judges who are attempting to challenge a policy that limits their ability to speak publicly.

“At this stage,” the court said in a brief order, “the government has not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay.”

There were no noted dissents and the decision suggested the Trump administration could try again at a later stage.

The case started off as a challenge to a personnel policy that requires immigration judges to obtain approval before they offer public remarks. A former labor union that represented the judges – who are part of the Justice Department – sued in federal court alleging that the policy violated their First Amendment right of free speech.

That policy, which began during President Donald Trump’s first term and was altered during the Biden administration, “categorically forbids” the judges “from speaking publicly in their personal capacities about immigration and about the agency that employs them,” attorneys at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University told the Supreme Court.

But by the time it reached the Supreme Court, the dispute dealt with a more technical question of where that fight can be heard – in federal court or before independent civil service agencies that typically review such claims by federal workers. That latter option is a problem for the immigration judges – and other federal employees – because Trump has been working to undermine those agencies for months.

The Justice Department wanted the judges to first use the administrative route. The judges are attempting to keep their case in federal court.

In May, the court allowed Trump to temporarily remove officials at the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board.

In that sense, the decision could have had ramifications beyond the judges by applying to other federal workers bringing similar claims.

The Justice Department has argued that without intervention from the Supreme Court, an appeals court ruling that came down in favor of the immigration judges would “wreak havoc” on similar cases.

“Only this court can halt the ongoing and rapidly spreading uncertainty for countless cases,” US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court.

A federal district court ruled for the administration, finding that the judges’ claims needed to be reviewed by the administrative agencies. But the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision earlier this year, ordering the trial court to review whether those administrative agencies are working as Congress intended.

The “foundational principle,” the appeals court said, “that functioning and independent bodies would receive, review, and decide in the first instance challenges to adverse personnel actions affecting covered federal employees, has recently been called into question.”

Shortly after the emergency appeal was filed on December 5, Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency appeals from the 4th Circuit, agreed to a request from the Trump administration to issue an “administrative” order that temporarily blocked the federal district court from proceeding with the case.

In its order Friday, however, the Supreme Court said that the district court c

The post Fawning Over Fauna appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.