Two Views, Same Place

 Many of these photos are from the internet.

Catawba Falls NC (not my photo)

 Catawba Falls, NC

From Asheville, 1893 and 2026...

Biltmore Village in 1893 and today. All Souls church was being built

Different views of Looking Glass Falls NC

Looking Glass Falls 1925. Asheville Post Card Co.

 Lower left corner shows photographer, Masa, numbering 0-5456.

This could be my photo, or one like it. This site is right next to US Highway 276 near Brevard NC.

Taken by drone probably...

Lady Liberty

Yellowstone Lower Falls, WY by Rob Moody

Yellowstone Falls in winter

From London England

The Temple Bar, the last surviving ceremonial gateway to the City of London

Sharing with Sepia Saturday

------------------------

A body of clay, a mind full of play, a moment's life -- that's me. 

-Harivansh Rai Bachchan, poet (1907-2003)

----------------

Yesterday, February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled tRump's tariffs were illegal.

"BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 20, 2026 ruled in a 6–3 decision that Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs were illegal because he exceeded his authority under federal law when he imposed them without clear congressional approval.

The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the 1977 statute Trump cited to justify his tariffs, does not authorize the president to impose broad import taxes. Under the Constitution, that power is reserved to Congress.

Majority (6 Justices) Tariffs Struck Down

Chief Justice John Roberts (wrote the opinion)

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Justice Elena Kagan

Justice Neil Gorsuch

Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

These justices agreed that IEEPA does not grant tariff authority and that imposing tariffs of this scope without clear congressional authorization violates federal law.

Dissent (3 Justices)

Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Justice Clarence Thomas

Justice Samuel Alito

The dissenters argued that the statute could be interpreted to permit these actions or that the majority misread the president’s authority under existing law.

What This Means

The tariffs Trump imposed under emergency powers, including wide-reaching duties on imports from major trading partners, are no longer lawful.

The Court did not fully spell out the refund process, but companies that paid billions in tariffs may now seek refunds.

The ruling represents a significant check on executive power in trade policy and underscores that only Congress can authorize new taxes or tariffs.

This decision is a major blow to Trump’s economic agenda and could reshape how future presidents approach trade authority and executive power.

Supreme Court Ruled

 The news in detail from Litigation Tracker:

Global Health Council v. Trump (D.D.C.)

Case No. ​​1:25-cv-00402

Feb. 11, 2025

A group of for-profit and nonprofit organizations that contract with USAID sued the Trump administration over its recent actions to defund USAID, lay off or furlough employees, and transfer the Agency to be under the State Department. Plaintiffs provide a detailed chronology of the actions, memoranda, and statements that the Administration has issued. In addition to imperiling future projects by freezing future funds, plaintiffs also allege that there is money unpaid for services already performed. ($3,376,832 for Democracy International, approximately $120 million for DAI, $103.6 million for Chemonics, and tens of millions for SBAIC’s members.) Plaintiffs allege that neither the President, nor the Secretary of State, nor the USAID Administrator have the authority to unilaterally withhold already-appropriated funds, citing the Constitution and statutory law prohibiting the unilateral withholding: the Impoundment Control Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act. Plaintiffs also claim violations of the Administrative Procedure Act; that the Executive’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to statutory and constitutional law. Plaintiffs ask the court to vacate and set aside all of the defendants’ actions to implement Executive Order 14169 and seek injunctions to prevent defendants from continuing to implement EO 14169 and from “dismantling USAID.”
Update 1: On Feb. 11, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO enjoining implementation of the Executive Order and State Department Memorandum.
Update 2: On Feb. 13, the court granted a TRO in this case and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State on narrower terms than originally requested. The order enjoins implementation on the blanket suspension of foreign aid funding, but does not enjoin enforcement or implementation of Executive Order 14169, individual personnel decisions, or termination of individual contracts.
Update 3: On Feb. 20, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for enforcement of the court’s TRO “to the extent Defendants have not complied with the terms of the TRO,” but did not make a finding of contempt, citing “Defendants’ explicit recognition that ‘prompt compliance with the order’ is required.” The granted motion applies to this case and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State.
Update 4: On Feb. 24, plaintiffs filed an emergency renewed motion to enforce the TRO. The court held a hearing the following day and, on Feb. 25, granted the motion for a proposed order requiring the Administration pay all invoices and letter of credit drawdown requests for work completed prior to the TRO, as well as reimbursements on grants and assistance agreements by 11:59 pm on Wednesday, Feb. 26. The court further mandated that the Administration take no actions to impede and must ensure the prompt payment of appropriated foreign assistance funds going forward. The court also reportedly ordered the government to provide the court, by Feb. 26 at noon, with all internal directives to agency employees concerning compliance with the TRO.
Update 5: On Feb. 25, the Government submitted a notice of its decision to appeal the court’s decision to the DC Circuit, and a motion to stay the court’s order pending appeal.
Update 6: On Feb. 26, the district court rejected and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the Government’s motion for a stay.
Update 7: On Feb. 26, the Government filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court (while the decision before the D.C. Circuit was still pending) to vacate the district court’s TRO and grant an immediate administrative stay. That evening, Chief Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay and ordered a response by the plaintiffs by Feb. 28 at 12:p.m. EST.
Update 8: On Feb. 28, the Plaintiffs filed its opposition to the application.
Update 9: On Mar. 5, the Supreme Court rejected the Defendants’ petition in a 5-4 decision.

--------------------------------------------

That is all (for now)

Mifepristone as abortion pill is legal!

 Supreme Court's unanimous decision on  legal option for abortion! 

This is PBS's article released just minutes ago:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously preserved access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year, in the court’s first abortion decision since conservative justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago.

The justices ruled that abortion opponents lacked the legal right to sue over the federal Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication, mifepristone, and the FDA’s subsequent actions to ease access to it.

The case had threatened to restrict access to mifepristone across the country, including in states where abortion remains legal.

Go to link  above to read details in article by PBS.

June 24 is the 2nd anniversary of the Supremes overturning Roe v. Wade...leading to many difficulties for women in different states over the last 2 years!

Love my chocolate, but... (also comments about the Supreme Court "code")

 Eating chocolate isn't always healthy, as Consumer Reports shows how much lead and cambium can be found it it...dark chocolate, milk chocolate, drinks, brownies, cake mixes and more.

I wasn't thrilled to hear about dark chocolate, my favorite. But they didn't test my brand, Lindt. 

Here are some other results:

"When we tested dark chocolate bars last year, we found lead or cadmium levels above CR’s thresholds in 23 of 28 bars, or 82 percent of them. Our results this time were similar. Of the seven bars we tested, five, or 71 percent, were above our levels for lead, cadmium, or both.

I do like to make brownies though, oops!

--------------------------

Below 100% of CR's levels

--------------

Above 100% of CR's levels

-------------

My favorite brownie mix...results:

Ghirardelli

 

Premium Brownie Mix Double Chocolate

16 servings per box

 

LEAD

 

 

108%

 

CADMIUM

 

 

37%

---------------

The way I look at that is that it's 108 times above the allowable amount of lead for a single serving. I shall no longer bring this to pot luck functions! If it's only 8% I could live with that. I'm stewing over this.

If you understand the way it's over or under I'd like to hear how you see that working. It's really just 8% over their level, isn't it?

---------------------

Today's quote:

If you pray for rain long enough, it eventually does fall. If you pray for floodwaters to abate, they eventually do. The same happens in the absence of prayers. -Steve Allen, television host, musician, actor, comedian, and writer (1921-2000)

And just a note on current events:

Robert Reich offers this info:
Yesterday, (11.13.23) the Supreme Court announced an ethics code for the justices. But the code is utterly empty. It has no enforcement mechanism and no mechanism for the public to lodge complaints of misconduct.

It’s public relations pablum.

The court effectively admitted this, saying that “the absence of a Code … has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”

Misunderstanding? I’m sorry, but the public understands quite well that the justices regard themselves as free to do whatever they wish, in terms of ethics.

The new rules don’t require any changes in how the justices conduct themselves.

The new code has no system for the public to lodge complaints or for any outside review of alleged ethical violations.

In the absence of any enforcement process, the document states that Chief Justice John Roberts has directed court staff to do a review of “best practices” based on systems already in place in the lower courts. It didn’t provide a timeline for that review or what action the court might take in response.

Ultimately, I blame Chief Justice John Roberts. The court’s chief justice is supposed to maintain public trust and confidence in the court, but Roberts has done everything possible to avoid a Code of Ethics with teeth. This latest pathetic attempt at pacifying the public will do little to reverse the sharp decline in public confidence in the nation’s highest court. 

Coping with the conservative patriarchy

The end of this week brought some depressing news to those who want equity under the law...who want both minority races and gender affirmations to protect our lives. Thus the patriarchy continues to control legal avenues, at least for now. It is in its death throws, as climate change will wipe the ancient legal models of definining our lives away with the expected crisis-es (crisies?). 

Conscious people will show compassion, embrace the needs of all, support those whose rights and places of belonging were washed away with floods, offer food and shelter to those whose homes burned or whose air was unbreatheable with the smokes of those wildfires each summer. The crisises of ashes is the place where the phoenix will again rise, reborn from those ashes, flying with power to give wisdom.

I am re-reading Robertson Work's book, Compassionate Civilization. He is more than a visionary, and has practical advice for groups of people working for common good.

This week the conservative Supreme Court has made more decisions that take away people's rights, and that make lives harder for them. Where they got the idea that this serves the law, I'm not sure. They certainly serve the GOP.

First (June 29, 2023) both Harvard and UNC were to stop using affirmative action in admissions...as are all institutions which have any federal funding for the students or research programs.

Those justices who dissented—Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—pointed to the profound racial discrimination that continued after the Civil War and insist that the law has the power to address that discrimination in order to achieve the equality promised by the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Jackson said:

 “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.”

In her concurring opinion concerning the UNC case, Jackson noted that “[g]ulf-sized race-based gaps exist with respect to the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens. They were created in the distant past, but have indisputably been passed down to the present day through the generations. Every moment these gaps persist is a moment in which this great country falls short of actualizing one of its foundational principles—the ‘self-evident’ truth that all of us are created equal.” 

SOURCE: Heather Cox Richardson, Leters from an American June 29, 2023

Then the Supremes (June 30, 2023) blocked the Biden plan to forgive student loan debts that amassed during the Covid crisis.

Justice Elena Kagan described the majority's decision to strike down Biden's student loan as an overreach, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“In every respect, the Court today exceeds its proper, limited role in our Nation’s governance," it begins.

And....limits LBGTQ rights by...

The Supreme Court Friday (June 30, 2023) ruled in favor of a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections.

The 6-3 decision was penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Lorie Smith, who runs a company called 303 Creative, sought to expand her business into the area of weddings and wrote a webpage explaining why she won’t create websites for same-sex couple. But under a Colorado public accommodations law, she said she cannot post the statement because the state considers it illegal.

The ruling – rooted in free speech grounds – will pierce state public accommodation laws for those businesses who sell so-called “expressive” goods. It is the latest victory for religious conservatives at the high court and will alarm critics who fear the current court is setting its sights on overturning the 2015 marriage case.

Gorsuch wrote that “the First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” He said Colorado sought to “deny that promise.”

SOURCE: CNN

Be part of the discussion on climate change as we move our society to a critical mass of people who can change the way we live, govern, support, communicate, and save the earth.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now

"In our world of big names, curiously, our true heroes tend to be anonymous. In this life of illusion and quasi-illusion, the person of solid virtues who can be admired for something more substantial than his well-knownness often proves to be the unsung hero: the teacher, the nurse, the mother, the honest cop, the hard worker at lonely, underpaid, unglamorous, unpublicized jobs."

 -Daniel J Boorstin, historian, professor, attorney, and writer (1 Oct 1914-2004) 

For Skywatch Friday...

June 13, 2022 taken near Sylva, NC

June 25 being renovated...downtown Black Mountain NC

May 7, downtown Black Mountain

June 15 lunar eclipse...which my phone camera couldn't capture!

Then there were delightful clouds on July 4 around 9:00 pm...before fireworks for which I was already inside and didn't try to see.

My panorama of the neighborhood...maybe a super car in the foreground!

On the Supreme Court decision of June 24, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the Supreme Court denied women the constitutional liberty to control their reproductive choices, there's been recent a Pew Survey showing how much support it really has. See Pew Research Center, Majority in U.S. Disapprove of Supreme Court Abortion Decision Overturning Roe v. Wade.

One chart in the Pew survey shows that 50% or more of the following groups oppose the ruling in Dobbs: Whites, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics; every age group from 18 to 65+; every educational level from “some high school” to postgraduate; Catholics, non-evangelical white Protestants, and Black Protestants; and married and unmarried people. The only demographic group that favors Dobbs by more than 50% is white evangelical Christians.

And the leading law firms in America? 

Many of America’s elite law firms looked the other way as their male partners lobbied to rescind the constitutional rights of their women partners. The women partners in those firms are now speaking in unison to defend the rights of all women. More than 2,500 women partners in major law firms have signed a call to action. See The American Lawyer, More Than 2,650 Women Partners From 190 Firms Issue Call to Action Post-'Dobbs'.

The statement reads, in part,

          We swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. We take that oath seriously. We know that our ability to serve in the legal profession and swear that oath was hard fought and rests fundamentally on the premise and promise that we, as women and people who have or had the potential to become pregnant, are free and equal citizens under the law. 

          The Court has failed to uphold the promise at the very core of the Constitution: the promise of liberty and dispassionate, fair and equal treatment for all under law.

        We cannot let that failure stand.

These quotes are from a newsletter by Robert Hubble which I just had recommended to me by a very astute and active promoter of the ERA, my friend Roberta Madden. Just thought I'd share these comments here.

Corporations are NOT people!

In case you also were dismayed about the Supreme Court decision Monday...and can get to Black Mountain, NC.


Learn about the nationwide campaign to amend the Constitution to return corporations to their earlier state when they were not given the rights of citizens, when money wasn’t speech and Congress could regulate money in politics.

Where: Unitarian Universalist Congregation, 500 Montreat Rd, Black Mountain, NC

When: Thursday, July 3rd “Legalize Democracy”
            Thursday, Aug 7th “The Story of Citizens United v FEC”

Doors Open at 6:30 PM, Event at 7:00, Q&A Session at 8:00
Sponsored by Move to Amend, Buncombe County, and the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Swannanoa Valley - Social Action

Last year I attended a talk by David Cobb, a former Presidential Candidate for the Green Party.  Here are a bunch of ammature photos of the Time Line about corporate history in the US> 
http://blackmtnbarb.blogspot.com/2013/07/move-to-amend-us-constitution.html