Author Topic: : Does Our Media Work For The People 4 ?---------------  (Read 111476 times)

Frodo, Garthok and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline

  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 52972
  • Reputation: +271/-315
What do you think will happen if minimum wage is raised?  A lot of jobs that can, will be sent overseas, where they can pay people even less than 7$ an hour.  There is no perfect answer.
The days go by slow, but the years go by fast.

Online

  • Administrator
  • 200 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 321207
  • Reputation: +579/-91
  • "A countenance more in sorrow than in anger"
  • Location: Topix Too
Occupy Democrats
 
 ·
BREAKING: "OH MY GOD! OUCH!" Morning Joe’s Mika bursts out laughing after Fox News accidentally exposes Trump’s latest crowd size disaster at his "Great State Fair!"
Donald Trump has spent years obsessing over crowd sizes, so naturally his allies are still trying to convince America that sparse turnouts are actually massive gatherings if you just squint hard enough.
That effort hit a brick wall Monday when co-host Mika Brzezinski watched a Fox News segment defending attendance at Trump’s Freedom 250 “Great American State Fair” event and simply lost it.
Trump has claimed that 45,000 people attended his speech at the Trump-backed celebration in Washington, D.C., despite multiple reports and visual evidence suggesting the crowd was dramatically smaller.
News outlets estimated attendance at roughly 1,000 people, and photos showed that the audience occupied only a relatively small portion of the event grounds. 
Still, Fox News correspondent Kevin Corke insisted viewers were getting the wrong impression.
“And sometimes the pictures really don’t tell the full story because if you look behind us you see, okay there are a couple hundred people back there,” Corke said.
“But the truth is when you make your way over here and you're in a wash of people.”
That’s when Mika lost it.
“Oh my God!” she exclaimed before bursting into laughter. “OUCH!”
Corke said it with a straight face, but the camera didn't lie. 
As Corke attempted to explain that unseen multitudes were lurking somewhere beyond the lens, viewers could plainly see a large open grassy area behind him that looked considerably less like Woodstock and considerably more like a county fair that forgot to advertise.
Conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg delivered the coup de grâce.
“If only they had employees who knew how to operate cameras that could capture these images he describes,” Goldberg quipped.
For years, Trump has treated crowd sizes the way Captain Ahab treated the white whale. No matter what else is happening in the world, he always seems to circle back to proving that more people showed up for him than for anyone else.
Unfortunately for Team Trump, cameras remain stubbornly nonpartisan.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Online

  • Forum Moderator
  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58801
  • Reputation: +280/-12
Supreme Court says Trump can't fire Lisa Cook - of Federal Reserve
Case remanded to lower courts to litigate if cause.

In other case he can fire FTC person in federal agency
Big change. President can fire anybody in such agency without cause
Like Like x 1 View List

Online

  • Forum Moderator
  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58801
  • Reputation: +280/-12
 Supreme Court to weigh Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship voting law
The justices will consider whether the requirements violate the federal National Voter Registration Act.
June 29, 2026, 9:56 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — Taking up a new case touching on Republican warnings about alleged election fraud, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether Arizona rules requiring voters to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote violate federal law.

In the court’s next term, which starts in October, the justices will decide whether the state can seek more information than what is mandated under the federal National Voter Registration Act.

Under the Arizona law, people would have to show a birth certificate, passport or some other proof of citizenship in order to register to vote using the state registration form.

The case, arising from an appeal brought by the Republican National Committee, does not affect the separate process in which people can register using the federal form, which only requires that applicants attest they are U.S. citizens.

Online

  • Forum Moderator
  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58801
  • Reputation: +280/-12
 As part of same case

Supreme Court to review the legality of mass voter purges in the weeks before an election-CNN

The Supreme Court will review the legality of mass voters purges in the final weeks before an election, as part of a larger case the justices are taking up examining the methods Arizona uses to keep non-citizens off the voter rolls.

The dispute will not be resolved before the midterms, but it elevates efforts by Republicans to tighten voting rules amid President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of mass election fraud.

The justices will be examining the scope of the National Voter Registration Act, a 1993 law that governs how states maintain their voter rolls. While much of the case concerns Arizona’s specific procedures for vetting voters’ citizenship status, the dispute also tees up a question with nationwide implications about when election officials can purge rolls.

The NVRA forbids “systematic” voter removals program within 90 days of an election. Lower courts in the past have applied that prohibition toward programs aimed at removing non-citizens from the rolls in mass.

Now Republicans and the Trump administration is arguing that the NVRA’s so-called quiet period does not cover purges aimed at culling non-citizens from the rolls.

Online

  • Forum Moderator
  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58801
  • Reputation: +280/-12
 Supreme Court widens Trump’s power to fire agency leaders — except the Fed
The exception for the Federal Reserve is a blow to Trump’s efforts to prod the central bank to lower interest rates.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/29/trump-supreme-court-slaughter-cook-fire-fed-00979734

The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump sweeping power to control executive branch agencies, while effectively exempting the Federal Reserve.

The justices voted 6-3, along ideological lines, to scuttle a 91-year old precedent that said Congress can limit the president’s ability to fire Senate-confirmed leaders to instances of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

But in a separate ruling, the high court voted 5-4 to send back to a lower court a lawsuit over Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a Fed member appointed by President Joe Biden. The decision, which allows Cook to remain in her post while litigation continues over the effort to dismiss her, is a blow to Trump’s efforts to prod the Fed to lower interest rates.

The court did not outright prevent Trump from firing Cook, but it rejected his arguments that courts had little power to review the decision.

Online

  • Forum Moderator
  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58801
  • Reputation: +280/-12
 Though Trump may not fire Cook for now, the court allowed him to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. In the latter case, the court overturned a key 1935 Supreme Court ruling called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld restrictions on the president’s power to fire FTC members.

The court in effect created a Federal Reserve exception to its general view — long-favored by conservatives suspicious of what some term a federal bureaucratic “deep state” — that restrictions on the president’s power to fire members of federal agencies imposed by Congress were an unconstitutional restriction of executive authority.

So, while Cook can remain in office for now, the court granted Trump free rein to continue firing members of agencies that were specifically set up by Congress to be free of political interference. The court concluded that the Federal Reserve is different from other independent agencies, in part based on its unique structure and history.

While the FTC ruling only directly affects Slaughter, whom Trump fired in March 2025, the logic applies to other agencies with similar restrictions on the president firing members without cause.

The court has already allowed Trump to fire, without cause, members other agencies that regulate health, safety, labor and environmental issues, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Surface Transportation Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Online

  • Forum Moderator
  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58801
  • Reputation: +280/-12
 In the Cook case, Roberts rejected the Trump administration’s contention that the president’s firing of Cook could not be reviewed in court and that she could not stay in office while contesting the decision.

“To accept any of those arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment,” he wrote.

Such a step would be “out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference,” he continued.

Online

  • Forum Moderator
  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58801
  • Reputation: +280/-12
 The court in effect created a Federal Reserve exception to its general view — long-favored by conservatives suspicious of what some term a federal bureaucratic deep state — that restrictions on the president’s power to fire members of federal agencies imposed by Congress were an unconstitutional restriction of executive authority.

“Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one president,” Roberts wrote in the Slaughter ruling.(The FTC case which will affect other federal agencies)

“Subordinates who exercise the president’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the president, and the president to the people,” wrote Roberts.

Online

  • Forum Moderator
  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58801
  • Reputation: +280/-12
Made me think of Rush-Freewill  "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

Supreme Court hangs up on whether smartphone search was 'reasonable'
The action leaves Okello Chatrie convicted of robbing a bank in Virginia in 2019 after police tracked him down by searching for smartphones in the area where robbery occurred.-USA Today


 The Supreme Court decided that police who sifted through smartphone data to locate unidentified suspects in crimes conducted a "search" under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, but sent the case back to lower courts to determine whether the search in a bank-robbery investigation was reasonable.

The case focused on Okello Chatrie, who was convicted of robbing a bank in Virginia in 2019 after police tracked him down by searching for smartphones in the area where robbery occurred. Chatrie argued the police warrant for Google to sift through 500 million customers to find his Samsung Galaxy X9 phone violated his Fourth Amendment right against an unreasonable search because police hadn't identified him as a suspect.

But the Justice Department said Google only named three suspects out of the millions searched. Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin said blocking such searches would handicap police searching for murderers, kidnappers and robbers.


Online

  • Forum Moderator
  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58801
  • Reputation: +280/-12
 Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a splintered majority that police conducted a "search" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment "when they gained access to Location History data."

"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," Kagan wrote.

The court sends the case back to the lower court for it to determine whether the search was reasonable, "meaning that each of its steps was properly described with particularity and found to be supported by probable cause."

Online

  • Forum Moderator
  • 25 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58801
  • Reputation: +280/-12
Birthright Citizenship ruling is tomorrow

Online

  • Administrator
  • 200 Grand Member
  • *
  • Posts: 321207
  • Reputation: +579/-91
  • "A countenance more in sorrow than in anger"
  • Location: Topix Too

Offline

  • ~
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10695
  • Reputation: +275/-32

‪Dona Dickinson‬
 ‪@donadickinson.bsky.social‬
· 42m
SCOTUS refused to hear E. Jean Carroll.
So it’s official: he is a predator.


Online

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13886
  • Reputation: +375/-151
  • panem et circenses
As part of same case

Supreme Court to review the legality of mass voter purges in the weeks before an election-CNN

The Supreme Court will review the legality of mass voters purges in the final weeks before an election, as part of a larger case the justices are taking up examining the methods Arizona uses to keep non-citizens off the voter rolls.

The dispute will not be resolved before the midterms, but it elevates efforts by Republicans to tighten voting rules amid President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of mass election fraud.

The justices will be examining the scope of the National Voter Registration Act, a 1993 law that governs how states maintain their voter rolls. While much of the case concerns Arizona’s specific procedures for vetting voters’ citizenship status, the dispute also tees up a question with nationwide implications about when election officials can purge rolls.

The NVRA forbids “systematic” voter removals program within 90 days of an election. Lower courts in the past have applied that prohibition toward programs aimed at removing non-citizens from the rolls in mass.

Now Republicans and the Trump administration is arguing that the NVRA’s so-called quiet period does not cover purges aimed at culling non-citizens from the rolls.
They drop you from the rolls if you miss two full cycles here.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."

Offline

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 930
  • Reputation: +4/-8
𝕊𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕖 𝔾𝕦𝕣𝕝‬
 ‪@sundaedivine.lol‬
· 2h
The Rapture took the crowd and left the porta-potties.

Fuck ICE !

Online

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13886
  • Reputation: +375/-151
  • panem et circenses
𝕊𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕖 𝔾𝕦𝕣𝕝‬
 ‪@sundaedivine.lol‬
· 2h
The Rapture took the crowd and left the porta-potties.


"Leave the gun, take the cannoli."
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."

Offline

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 930
  • Reputation: +4/-8
Rick Havoc‬
 ‪@rickhavoc.bsky.social‬
· 4h
A.) Respect is earned.
B.) Fat chance.


Donald Trump Is Going Viral For Demanding People To Respect The President
Fuck ICE !
Funny Funny x 1 View List

 

Topix Too