Tag Archives: can&#39t

Ilhan Omar: Trump admin can't be trusted on Iran if it ' lies about weather maps or crowd sizes'

Ilhan Omar: Trump admin can't be trusted on Iran if it ' lies about weather maps or crowd sizes'Omar said that the administration could not be trusted to "give us the full information" on Iran because of past falsehoods about "weather maps."



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Expert: Iran Can't Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier in a War (For Now)

Expert: Iran Can't Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier in a War (For Now)But the future is unclear.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Kamala Harris laughs when Biden tells her she can't ban guns with an executive order

Kamala Harris laughs when Biden tells her she can't ban guns with an executive orderDan Bongino wraps up a wild week in news with News Explosion on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

NYPD: Fewer arrests since 'I can't breathe' officer's firing

NYPD: Fewer arrests since 'I can't breathe' officer's firingArrests totals in New York City have plunged in the two weeks since the police department fired an officer for the 2014 chokehold death of Eric Garner, pointing to a possible slowdown amid a heated response to the firing from the officers’ union. Felony arrests are down about 11% and misdemeanor arrests are down about 17% since Officer Daniel Pantaleo’s Aug. 19 firing, compared with the average daily totals for the rest of the year, Police Commissioner James O’Neill said Wednesday. At the same time, the NYPD has seen a 32% drop in moving violations, he said.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Gerrymandering Is a Cancer State Courts Can't Cure

Gerrymandering Is a Cancer State Courts Can't Cure(Bloomberg Opinion) — It’s great news that the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down partisan gerrymandering under its state constitution. The ability of states to read their own constitutions differently from the federal constitution is part of what make states laboratories for democracy. And no experiment is more dangerous for the future of democracy than highly effective, computer-modeled partisan gerrymandering.But don’t get too excited about the prospect that lots of states will overcome partisan gerrymandering through state judicial action.In practice, a state Supreme Court is only likely to reverse a partisan gerrymander when the state court is controlled by a different party than the one that controls the state legislature. That can happen, as it did in North Carolina. But when it does occur, it mostly comes down to luck.In eight states, Supreme Court justices are actually themselves chosen in partisan elections. One of those is North Carolina.  (Two additional states elect their Supreme Court justices using a combination of partisan and nonpartisan means.) So the fact that a Democratic majority state Supreme Court overturned the Republican legislature’s partisan gerrymandering is mostly a function of the quirky fact that North Carolina had a majority of Supreme Court Democrats at a moment when its legislature and governorship were in the hands of Republicans.Judicial elections aren’t themselves easy to gerrymander, because they are state-wide. But they are susceptible to various kinds of partisan maneuverings. (Only seven states don’t hold any kind of judicial election.) In general, elections tend to connect the justices to the state’s political apparatus. That might make a state Supreme Court controlled by the minority party more likely to overturn a partisan gerrymander by the other side. But it also essentially ensures that a court controlled by the state’s majority party would uphold a gerrymander.In states where the justices are appointed by the governor, rather than elected, it is always possible that the semi-random drift of judicial appointments and life tenure will produce a state Supreme Court majority of a different ideological flavor than that of the party controlling the legislature at a given moment. The same thing has happened in the past on the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet on the whole, a state with a durable partisan majority at the state level is likely to have a state Supreme Court dominated by the same party. Governors tend to pick their own, and in any case they need to get their state judicial picks past state legislatures’ confirmation processes.That means most of the time, state supreme courts won’t be very likely to overturn partisan gerrymanders.The interplay of federal and state constitutions is relevant here. The reason opponents of partisan gerrymandering fought a decades-long battle to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to rule partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional was precisely that they didn’t trust the state courts to solve the problem piecemeal – because state courts so often reflect the configuration of political power at the state level.But the advocates lost in a 5-4 decision this past June, saying that federal courts don’t have the power to hear such cases. Given the current makeup of the Court, that defeat was almost certainly generational.Relying on state supreme courts to do what the U.S. Supreme Court would not do is thus a very distant second-best. The North Carolina victory is at most a consolation prize — and as consolation prizes go, not even a very good one.In the end, the only solution to the problem of gerrymandering is if the voters themselves decide enough is enough. Of course, the whole point of partisan gerrymandering is to make it exceedingly difficult for voters to express their preferences by giving a systematic advantage to the party in power. That’s what makes it such a scourge of democracy.The option that leaves voters is to introduce and pass state level referenda that would impose non-partisan district design on their states. Referenda aren’t looking all that good in these populist days, especially to anyone who is watching the Brexit debacle unfold. But the truth is that Progressive-era reformers introduced the whole idea of the referendum into U.S. politics in order to get around special interests who controlled state legislatures. In the end, only a referendum can allow the people to break a self-interested legislative chokehold.In a democracy, the ultimate salvation lies only with the voters. That’s a painful reality. But it’s better to acknowledge it than to fantasize the state supreme courts will save us from ourselves.To contact the author of this story: Noah Feldman at nfeldman7@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Sarah Green Carmichael at sgreencarmic@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. His books include “The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President.” For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Erdogan says it's unacceptable that Turkey can't have nuclear weapons

Erdogan says it's unacceptable that Turkey can't have nuclear weaponsTurkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday it was unacceptable for nuclear-armed states to forbid Ankara from obtaining its own nuclear weapons, but did not say whether Turkey had plans to obtain them. “Some countries have missiles with nuclear warheads, not one or two. “There is no developed nation in the world that doesn’t have them,” Erdogan said.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Biden has another blunder when he can't remember the Department of Health and Human Services

Biden has another blunder when he can't remember the Department of Health and Human ServicesJoe Biden's campaign is on defense again after another campaign trail blunder.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

You can't nuke a hurricane to stop it, as Trump reportedly suggested. Here's why

You can't nuke a hurricane to stop it, as Trump reportedly suggested. Here's whyA report from Axios says Trump suggested using a nuclear bomb to stop a hurricane. The idea isn't a new one, nor would it work, weather experts say.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

CNN’s Brian Stelter: ‘We Can't Tiptoe’ Around Trump’s Mental Instability ‘Anymore’

CNN’s Brian Stelter: ‘We Can't Tiptoe’ Around Trump’s Mental Instability ‘Anymore’CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter called on media outlets to focus more coverage on what he feels is President Trump’s obvious mental instability, saying Sunday morning that it is an issue we can no longer “tiptoe around.”“He’s getting worse,” Stelter said at the top of his weekend show focussing on the media CNN’s Reliable Sources. “We can see it. It’s happening in public but it’s still a very hard, very sensitive story to cover. I’m talking of course about President Trump, about his behavior, about his instability.”Noting that several prominent conservative figures—notably, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway’s husband—are pleading with the press and Republicans to take the president’s erratic behavior more seriously, the CNN host then ticked off a list of the president’s comments and actions that have raised eyebrows.“Look, all of these stories are covered in the moment, individually, by reporters,” Stelter said. “News outlets use words like erratic, volatile, unstable but rarely are Trump’s words and actions covered as a whole and rarely do news outlets take it to that next level. Okay, what he just said seems crazy—what does that reveal about him? We rarely see it go to that next step.”Pointing out that Trump will always have a chorus of supporters backing him up and defending him, the CNN media analyst added that Trump’s “Fox fans pretend the worst episodes didn’t happen at all or blame the media for bad coverage.”While Stelter went on to credit CNN and MSNBC for doing a decent job of showing the “ugly reality” with their on-screen graphics, he also stated that there is not “really a vocabulary” or a “format” for covering concerns about a president’s mental well-being. “It’s really a series of questions that no one is able to answer,” he declared. “Why does he make it all about himself even after visiting a hospital after a massacre? Why does he lie so often? Is there a method to the madness or is something wrong? Is he suffering from some sort of illness? It’s questions, questions and then just more questions.”Prior to bringing on two psychiatrists to debate the ethics of media outlets openly discussing the president’s mental fitness, Stelter ended his monologue by noting “we can’t tiptoe around it anymore.”“We’ve got to talk about this,” he concluded. “So let’s talk about it. Let’s do it.”This isn’t the first time that Stelter has taken to the air to speculate about the president’s mental health. In Aug. 2017, the CNN personality wondered aloud why more journalists weren’t asking the “uncomfortable questions” about whether Trump was fit for office or “suffering from some kind of illness.” And in Jan. 2018, called on reporters to do “more reporting” on Trump’s possible mental instability. Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

A Mexican judge says 2 people can legally use cocaine — but they can't buy or sell it

A Mexican judge says 2 people can legally use cocaine — but they can't buy or sell itA court in Mexico ordered the government to allow plaintiffs to "possess, transport and use cocaine," but not to sell or buy it.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines