Snowflake.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.
Actually, naming him would alleviate two of the right's talking points against her: that she's pro-Palestinian and Trump's recent remarks that "she hates Jews." (Never mind she married one.)“He’s Jewish,” CNN’s John King noted last week, so “there could be some risk in putting him on the ticket.”
[...]
Today, Shapiro is the only veep contender subject to an organized campaign to capsize his prospective nomination. Put together by hard-left congressional staffers and members of Democratic Socialists of America, among others, the push is ostensibly about Shapiro’s support for Israel. “Tell Kamala and the Democrats now,” reads the site NoGenocideJosh.com, “say no to Genocide Josh Shapiro for Vice President.”
The Atlantic
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.[A]s its name implies, the “Genocide Josh” campaign is not about applying a single standard on Palestine to all VP contenders; it’s about applying them to one person, who just so happens to be the only Jew on the shortlist. And to make matters more absurd, Shapiro’s positions on Israel don’t come close to fitting the epithet.
“I personally believe Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the worst leaders of all time,” Shapiro told reporters in January, months before Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for the Israeli leader to resign. At the time, Shapiro also pressed for an “immediate two-state solution,” something Netanyahu and his hard-right government stridently oppose. The anti-Shapiro campaign ignores these remarks but makes much of the governor’s comparison of campus Gaza protesters to “people dressed up in KKK outfits.” When he said that in an interview, however, Shapiro was distinguishing between bigoted extremists—such as the Columbia campus-protest leader who called for killing “Zionists”—and peaceful demonstrators, about whom the governor has said, “It’s right for young people to righteously protest and question.”
Now consider the other vice-presidential contenders. Arizona’s Senator Mark Kelly leads the Democratic-nominee prediction markets along with Shapiro. Like the Pennsylvania governor, Kelly also supported using police to break up campus encampments. “Everybody has the right to protest peacefully,” he said, “but when it turns into unlawful acts—we’ve seen this in a number of colleges and universities, including here in Arizona—it’s appropriate for the police to step in.” In the same interview, Kelly said that the Israelis “have to do a better job” reducing civilian casualties in Gaza, but drew on his military experience to explain the difficulty of that task, and emphasized that “Hamas, without question, is the biggest impediment to peace in the Middle East.” Last week, Kelly attended Netanyahu’s address to Congress and applauded.
Unlike Shapiro, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper didn’t simply enforce preexisting state laws against boycotts of Israel while in office—he signed one himself in 2017. This month, Cooper codified into state law a definition of anti-Semitism that has been adopted by many countries around the world, but that left-wing critics argue penalizes speech critical of Israel. Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, flew state flags at half-mast after October 7 and did not respond to activists who called on the state to divest from Israel. Some were arrested after protesting outside his residence.
“This week Senator McConnell explicitly said why the toughest, fairest bipartisan border legislation in modern American history is stalled: ‘our nominee for president did not seem to want us to do anything at all,’” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in an email Thursday.
NBC
So? Who is taking his place?The Heritage Foundation official who leads Project 2025, the conservative road map for the next Republican administration, is stepping down after former President Donald Trump and his aides publicly criticized the group and Democrats decried its proposals as radical and dangerous.
Wall Street Journal
Sure.Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Monday repeatedly prodded former President Trump over his comments at a conservative Christian summit.
[...]
Trump on Friday addressed Turning Point Action’s “Believers Summit” in Florida. He urged Christians to back him for a second term in a race against Vice President Harris and closed out his remarks by urging attendees to vote in November.
“You won’t have to do it anymore … You got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote,” Trump said.
[...]
“That statement is very simple. I said vote for me, you’re not going to have to do it ever again. It’s true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group,” Trump said.
[...]
“You have to vote on Nov. 5. After that you don’t have to worry about voting anymore. I don’t care, because we’re going to fix it. The country will be fixed … We won’t even need your vote anymore because, frankly, we will have such love.”
MSN
“That statement is very simple. I said vote for me, you’re not going to have to do it ever again. It’s true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group,” Trump said.
[...]
“You have to vote on Nov. 5. After that you don’t have to worry about voting anymore. I don’t care, because we’re going to fix it. The country will be fixed … We won’t even need your vote anymore because, frankly, we will have such love.”
MSN
That could be considered closing the barn door after the horse has gone. It could also be considered appointing the fox to guard the hen house.Justice Elena Kagan proposed Chief Justice John Roberts appoint a panel of judges to enforce the US Supreme Court’s code of conduct.
Bloomberg
I respectuflly dissent.While speaking Thursday at a judicial conference in Sacramento, California, Kagan said she trusts Roberts and if he creates “some sort of committee of highly respected judges with a great deal of experience and a reputation for fairness,” that seems like a good solution.
During a discussion with lawyer Roger Townsend and US Bankruptcy Judge Madeleine Wanslee, Kagan also criticized her colleagues for writing multiple opinions in a single case, saying it complicates matters for lower courts.
[...]
While there are times when separate writings make sense, Kagan said justices shouldn’t be writing separately just because they would have written the majority decision differently. The court should have a “higher threshold” than that, she said.
Kagan cited the court’s fractured decision in the United States v. Rahimi gun case. The court upheld a federal law that bans people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a gun in a 8-1 decision in which seven of the nine justices wrote their own opinions despite there being only one dissent.
Kavanaugh had 11 (I think that's the right number) ethics complaints filed against him when he was appointed to the Supreme Court bench, which made them all go away. Do you think the SCOTUS panel will be any more efficient than whoever was supposed to be covering Kavanaugh complaints?Kagan suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts could establish a committee of lower-court judges to tackle complaints against the justices.
Politico
Sure. Whatever.“It would provide a sort of safe harbor. … Sometimes people accuse us of misconduct where we haven’t engaged in misconduct. And, so, I think both in terms of enforcing the rules against people who have violated them, but also in protecting people who haven’t violated them, I think a system like that would make sense,” she said.
You think?“Often people use separate opinions to pre-decide issues that aren’t properly before the court and that may come before the court in a year or two and try to give signals as to how lower courts should decide that, which I don’t think is right.”
We're at the point where one Supreme Court justice thinks Supreme Court justice's opinions should be ignored.“I don’t know how lower courts are supposed to deal with it really. Mostly, I think they should deal with it by ignoring it, basically,” she said.
So, he could be wrongly imprisoned for a lot longer.For the second time in weeks, a Missouri prison has ignored a court order to release an inmate whose murder conviction was overturned. Just as in the case of Sandra Hemme, actions by the state’s attorney general are keeping Christopher Dunn locked up.
St. Louis Circuit Judge Jason Sengheiser on Monday tossed out Dunn’s conviction for a 1990 killing. Dunn, 52, has spent 33 years behind bars, and he remained Tuesday at the state prison in Licking.
Dunn wasn’t released after his conviction was overturned because Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey appealed the judge’s ruling, “and we’re awaiting the outcome of that legal action,” Missouri Department of Corrections spokeswoman Karen Pojmann said in an email Tuesday.
AP
“In our view, the judge’s order was very clear, ordering his immediate release,” [St. Louis Circuit Attorney Gabe] Gore said at a news conference Tuesday. “Based on that, we are considering what approach and what legal options we have to obtain Mr. Dunn’s relief.”
.President Joe Biden signed into law on Thursday a bill strengthening oversight of the crisis-plagued federal Bureau of Prisons after reporting by The Associated Press exposed systemic corruption, failures and abuse in the federal prison system.
The Federal Prison Oversight Act, which passed the Senate on July 10 and the House in May, establishes an independent ombudsman to field and investigate complaints in the wake of sexual assaults and other criminal misconduct by staff, chronic understaffing, escapes and high-profile deaths.
It also requires that the Justice Department’s inspector general conduct risk-based inspections of all 122 federal prison facilities, provide recommendations to address deficiencies and assign each facility a risk score. Higher-risk facilities would then receive more frequent inspections.
AP