Los aficionados japoneses celebran con gran entusiasmo el gol de Sano que los hace soñar con un mundial histórico para los samuráis.

This post was originally published on NBC News.

Rooted in childhood memories from Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, the lush songs chase one elusive sensation — safety — as war, migration and adulthood reshape her notion of home.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a fiery dissent Monday against the Supreme Court’s decision backing President Donald Trump’s power to fire members of independent federal agencies, describing the Republican-appointed majority’s ruling as one that cuts away at the Constitution.

Sotomayor spent nearly 20 minutes reading her dissent from the bench — an uncommon practice, though not the first time she has done so recently — in Trump v. Slaughter.

In a defiant tone, and with palpable anger, she described the decision as “grievously wrong” and one that “reshapes the structure of government in a fundamental way” by giving the president “a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted, elevating him above his once-coequal branches.”

As a result of the decision, Sotomayor wrote, “dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands.”

The decision allowing Trump to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, without cause upends a 1935 precedent that had protected the independence of agencies.

In doing so, Sotomayor said, the court is transforming the president’s “duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws.”

Sotomayor said the court is furthering an “absolutist” view of presidential power and that there should be a “counterbalance” to it. She called the ruling a “profoundly destabilizing result” that ignores the separation of powers written into the Constitution.

“These great statesmen and Justices knew something that today’s majority apparently does not: that fealty to the Constitution means respecting not just what it says, but what it does not say and by its silence leaves to others to decide,” Sotomayor wrote.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in Sotomayor’s dissent.

Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, read from her dissent in a different case last week when her Republican colleagues allowed the Trump administration to turn away asylum seekers who have not set foot on U.S. soil.

Fallon Gallagher and Jordan Rubin contributed reporting.

The post Sotomayor blasts court’s ruling allowing Trump to fire agency heads appeared first on MS NOW.

From MS Now.

Thomas Pearce has Pfeiffer Syndrome, which causes the skull to prematurely fuse in the womb.

Source: BBC.

Thomas Pearce has Pfeiffer Syndrome, which causes the skull to prematurely fuse in the womb.

Source: BBC.

Una recuperación en el mediocampo permitió a Japón lanzar un contragolpe fulminante que terminó con un gol del futbolista del Mainz.

This post was originally published on NBC News.

A JetBlue Airways pilot reported hitting a drone as the flight was on approach for landing at JFK Airport on Monday morning, the FAA said.

Source: ABC News

Rescuers armed with a range of techniques continue to search through the rubble in Venezuela.

Source: BBC.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that law enforcement conducted a Fourth Amendment search when it got a “geofence” warrant for Google location data to help solve an armed robbery. Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion for the court broadly endorsed privacy rights over dissent from Justice Samuel Alito that accused the majority of further destabilizing the law and doing so in a case in which, he said, the defendant will eventually lose.

Geofence warrants are used to locate phones that were in the area of a crime to help law enforcement identify suspects. The legality of such warrants has divided the lower courts and raised concerns for civil liberties, with one privacy group warning the justices ahead of the ruling that “the dragnet fishing expeditions that geofence warrants allow are not restricted to a small pond, but instead sweep in the full ocean of people who carry a cell phone.”

The justices considered the issue in the case of Okello Chatrie, who was convicted of armed robbery in Virginia with evidence from such a warrant.

Chatrie argued that law enforcement illegally invaded his property interest and privacy expectations. The government countered that he chose to share his location data with Google and that he lacked a constitutional interest in protecting it.

To answer the Fourth Amendment question, Kagan noted that the high court needed to decide 1) whether law enforcement technically conducted a “search” when they got Chatrie’s phone data and 2) if it was a search, whether it was a reasonable one.

In Monday’s ruling, the high court only addressed the first question. The answer, it said, was that the police did in fact conduct a search when they got the location information.

“An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information — even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company,” Kagan wrote.

But she said the court is leaving the next step to the appeals court, which will have to answer whether the search was reasonable, meaning whether each of the search’s steps “was properly described with particularity and found to be supported by probable cause.”

Alito expressed confidence that Chatrie will lose in the end. The justice therefore faulted his colleagues in the majority for nonetheless using this case to make their latest pronouncement on privacy in the digital age.

“Although today’s decision will send seismic waves through our Fourth Amendment doctrine, not one iota of the majority opinion will affect the outcome of this case,” Alito wrote, adding that he couldn’t support what he called the “irresponsible escapade.” His dissent was fully joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and partially joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The Trump appointee added her own brief dissent to explain that she agreed with Alito that Chatrie lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in data about his public movements that he voluntarily gave Google. But she said she didn’t take issue, as Alito did, with a previous landmark Fourth Amendment case that Alito accused the majority of gratuitously expanding, or with the court’s decision to review Chatrie’s case.

Alito said that no matter what the court would have decided, there was never any chance the defendant would prevail in the end because of the separate issue of whether law enforcement proceeded in good faith. The good-faith exception has long worked to deny even people who raise successful Fourth Amendment claims from benefiting from them.

Kagan’s opinion maintained that the ultimate issue was not settled by Monday’s opinion. She emphasized that the next step is up to the lower court. Depending on what happens there, the case could come back to the justices again.

Kagan’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with her bottom line but added a concurring opinion to explain how he would have gotten there differently. Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Sotomayor, saying that she would have gone further in specifying how the search in this case violated the Fourth Amendment.

Lower court judges who previously ruled against Chatrie on appeal said there were “twin risks” at play: “One is the risk that privacy will succumb to the evermore invasive technological capabilities at the hands of an evermore intrusive state. The other risk, which is just as real, is that of privileging those who break the law over those who would enforce it.”

At the April hearing, Roberts told Chatrie’s lawyer that if a person doesn’t want the government to have their location information, then “you just flip that off.” Roberts said people don’t need that feature on their phones, leading him to wonder: “What’s the issue?”

The lawyer said he took the chief justice’s point but that he still disagreed that people need to flip off their location history and other cloud services to avoid government surveillance. “I mean, by the same token, you don’t have to send email,” the lawyer said. “You can flick that off as well. But that doesn’t imply that you’re implicitly consenting to the government searching one’s email.”

The post Divided Supreme Court backs phone location privacy rights in ‘geofence’ warrant case appeared first on MS NOW.

From MS Now.

We want you to be a part of TMZ, so every weekday, between 10:30 AM and 12:00 PM PT, we take you inside our newsroom via live stream. You never know what you’re gonna get … a big story that breaks, an argument erupts in the room, or someone’s…

From TMZ.

We all wanna be “Toy Story 3,” but I have to say I’m more “Toy Story 4.”

---

View Entire Post ›

Source BuzzFeed.

Detroit Lions star Terrion Arnold just caught a huge break in his kidnapping case — he will NOT remain behind bars as he awaits his trial, a judge ruled on Monday. Arnold appeared at a pretrial detention hearing in Hillsborough County, Florida ……

From TMZ.