YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #virginia #astronomy #police #humor #nightsky #moon #crime #treason #animalbiology #supermoon #perigee #commies #zenith #loonyleft #lawenforcement
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y ·Youtube Politics

YouTube
Democrats WOKEST Moments
Like
Comment
Share
Disturbing History
Disturbing History
1 y ·Youtube Paranormal

YouTube
The Darkest Nazi Programs No One Knows About
Like
Comment
Share
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
1 y

Elon Musk Labels Country’s Government “Fascists” Over Proposed Free Speech Crackdown
Favicon 
100percentfedup.com

Elon Musk Labels Country’s Government “Fascists” Over Proposed Free Speech Crackdown

The Australian government proposed legislation to fine social media companies 5% of their global revenue for failing to crack down on so-called misinformation. “The government said it would make tech platforms set codes of conduct governing how they stop dangerous falsehoods spreading, to be approved by a regulator. The regulator would set its own standard if a platform failed to do so, then fine companies for non-compliance,” Reuters reports. Elon Musk responded to the reports by labeling Australia’s Labor government “fascists.” Fascists https://t.co/NQcR9justJ — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 12, 2024 Per Reuters: The legislation, to be introduced in parliament on Thursday, targets false content that hurts election integrity or public health, calls for denouncing a group or injuring a person, or risks disrupting key infrastructure or emergency services. The bill is part of a wide-ranging regulatory crackdown by Australia, where leaders have complained that foreign-domiciled tech platforms are overriding the country’s sovereignty, and comes ahead of a federal election due within a year. Already Facebook owner Meta has said it may block professional news content if it is forced to pay royalties, while X, formerly Twitter, has removed most content moderation since being bought by billionaire Elon Musk in 2022. In response to Musk’s remarks, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the SpaceX CEO needs to realize X “has a social responsibility.” “If Mr Musk doesn’t understand that, that says more about him than it does about my government,” he said, according to The Guardian. “Far left fascists love censorship,” Musk commented. Far left fascists love censorship https://t.co/9oMb5Wemcm — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 14, 2024 From The Guardian: Musk, who owns the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, made the comments about new legislation aimed at tackling deliberate lies spread on social media, which could see social media companies fined up to 5% of their annual turnover. Musk responded to a post on X about Australia’s measures by simply posting: “Fascists”. Musk has clashed with the Australian government multiple times over the past year, including over requests for X to take down clips of a Sydney bishop allegedly being stabbed. In April the eSafety commissioner ordered X to remove the graphic content and initiated proceedings in the federal court to have the material taken down. In June the eSafety commissioner discontinued the proceedings, but a separate administrative appeals tribunal review of the topic is expected to be heard in October. During the months-long saga, Musk accused the government of suppressing free speech.
Like
Comment
Share
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
1 y

Step Towards WWIII? Justin Trudeau “Fully Supports” Ukraine Using “Long-Range Weaponry” Against Russia
Favicon 
100percentfedup.com

Step Towards WWIII? Justin Trudeau “Fully Supports” Ukraine Using “Long-Range Weaponry” Against Russia

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada “fully supports” Ukraine utilizing “long-range weaponry” against Russia. “Canada and others are unequivocal that Ukraine must win this war against Russia,” Trudeau said. “Canada fully supports Ukraine using long-range weaponry,” he added. WATCH: JUST IN: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he fully supports Ukraine using long-range missiles to strike inside Russia. "Ukraine must win this war against Russia." pic.twitter.com/yxoWFC5Mv0 — BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) September 13, 2024 “On Thursday, Putin warned that allowing Ukraine to use weapons NATO provided for long-range strikes would mean that NATO countries are at war with Russia,” National Post stated. “This would mean that NATO countries, the U.S., and European nations are at war with Russia,” Putin said. “We will take appropriate decisions, based on the threats that will be posed to us,” he added. WATCH: Putin on the possibility of NATO and Ukraine using long-range weapons to strike deep into Russia: “This would mean that NATO countries, the U.S., and European nations are at war with Russia." pic.twitter.com/QTLgaDuzds — Ben Swann (@BenSwann_) September 13, 2024 President Vladimir Putin: If this decision [to allow Ukraine to strike Russia with Western-made long-range precision weapons] is made, it will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia.https://t.co/eNn21GfcMG pic.twitter.com/0WzrgfMZu7 — Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) September 13, 2024 National Post reports: Ukraine and many of its supporters want U.S. President Joe Biden to let Kyiv use the weapons to strike military targets deeper inside Russia. Trudeau said Ukraine can use this capacity to stop Russia’s frequent strikes on hospitals and daycares across the country. Putin’s remarks were in line with the narrative the Kremlin has promoted since early in the war, accusing NATO countries of de facto participation in the conflict and threatening a response. His comments came five weeks after Ukrainian forces stormed the border and put parts of Russian territory under foreign occupation for the first time since the Second World War. United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer met with Joe Biden about potentially allowing Ukraine to fire long-range missiles into Russia. President Joe Biden meets with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer inside the Blue Room at the White House. pic.twitter.com/Hajkcnj0nA — Tom Brenner (@tombrennerphoto) September 13, 2024 Per BBC: To date, the US and UK have not given Ukraine permission to use long-range missiles against targets inside Russia, for fear of escalation. However, Zelensky has repeatedly called on Kyiv’s Western allies to authorise such use, saying it is the only way to bring about an end to the war. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Ukrainian cities and front lines have been under daily bombardment from Russia. Many of the missiles and glide bombs that hit Ukraine’s military positions, blocks of flats, energy facilities and hospitals are launched by Russian aircraft deep inside Russia. Kyiv says not being allowed to hit the bases from which these attacks are launched hinders its self-defence capability. The UK previously said Ukraine had a “clear right” to use British-provided weapons for “self-defence” which “does not preclude operations inside Russia”, following Kyiv’s surprise cross-border incursion last month. However, this excludes the use of long-range Storm Shadow missiles in territory outside Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders. The US provided long-range missiles to Ukraine earlier this year, but like Kyiv’s other Western allies these have not been authorised for use on targets deep inside Russia.
Like
Comment
Share
Independent Sentinel News Feed
Independent Sentinel News Feed
1 y

WWIII: Direct War Between NATO and Russia Is On the Table
Favicon 
www.independentsentinel.com

WWIII: Direct War Between NATO and Russia Is On the Table

According to the AP, Ukraine made a new call Saturday on the West. They want to strike deeper into Russia. This came after a meeting between U.S. and British leaders a day earlier. It has not yet produced a visible shift in their policy on using long-range weapons. “Russian terror begins at weapons depots, airfields, […] The post WWIII: Direct War Between NATO and Russia Is On the Table appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.
Like
Comment
Share
BlabberBuzz Feed
BlabberBuzz Feed
1 y

Judge Dismisses Two Major Charges Against Trump In Georgia Election Case
Favicon 
www.blabber.buzz

Judge Dismisses Two Major Charges Against Trump In Georgia Election Case

Like
Comment
Share
Daily Wire Feed
Daily Wire Feed
1 y

Elon Musk Reacts To Theater Pulling ‘Am I Racist?’: ‘Far Left Fascists Love Censorship’
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

Elon Musk Reacts To Theater Pulling ‘Am I Racist?’: ‘Far Left Fascists Love Censorship’

Billionaire Elon Musk on Saturday called out the far-Left’s “love” of “censorship” after a California theater caved to activists’ pressure to cancel showings of Daily Wire film “Am I Racist?” Following up “What is a Woman?,” “Am I Racist?” is Matt Walsh’s latest documentary, which explores the massive grift of the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) industry with a man-bun-wearing undercover Walsh. “As reported by [Robby Starbuck], left wing activists are bullying theaters into dropping our film,” Walsh posted online Saturday. “This theater just issued an apology. The only way to stop the Left from shutting down the film is to support the theaters that are showing it. Tickets here: http://AmIRacist.com.” Musk responded succinctly, “The far left fascists love censorship.” The far left fascists love censorship https://t.co/R0eJwm9TpL — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 14, 2024 Starbuck noted that he’s heard from another theater owner that small theaters “are being targeted with threats from left wing activists” to shut down the film. Musk reacted to the report, calling it “messed up.”  “Wow. Left wing activists are now bullying small movie theaters like Del Oro Theatre in Grass Valley, CA into dropping [Matt Walsh]’s new ‘Am I Racist?’ film,” Starbuck said. “Another theatre owner told me that they’ve been told small theaters like this are being targeted with threats from left wing activists.” Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here! “The left is terrified of this film because it’s not only hilarious but it’s effective at dismantling their dangerous ideology,” he added. “We need to pack the theaters with sold out showings to make this movie even bigger.” Messed up — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 14, 2024 High profile racial activists, like Robin DiAngelo and Saira Rao, who cash in big on DEI and “white guilt,” are featured in the film espousing their radical ideology. Both activists have gone after the film. Rao has reportedly called “Am I Racist?” a “fascist Nazi white supremacy film,” and DiAngelo has claimed the movie is “a Borat-style mockumentary … designed to humiliate and discredit anti-racist educators and activists.” Walsh has responded to the Borat criticism by pointing out that unlike “Borat,” “Am I Racist?” punches up, and never tries to “embarrass normal working class Americans.” “Many on the Left are criticizing the tactics we use to make our film. Notice how they make no such criticisms about Borat. The difference is that Borat was meant to embarrass normal working class Americans. Our film embarrasses DEI, grifters, academics and upper class liberals,” Walsh posted to X. “Even Nathan Fielder, who I think is hilarious and brilliant, usually uses these kinds of methods to humiliate average people who haven’t done anything to deserve the humiliation. The Left is fine with that, too. With our new film, and our last film, we’re actually punching up. But somehow we’re the ‘unethical’ ones. Interesting.” Even Nathan Fielder, who I think is hilarious and brilliant, usually uses these kinds of methods to humiliate average people who haven’t done anything to deserve the humiliation. The Left is fine with that too. With our new film, and our last film, we’re actually punching up. But… — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 13, 2024 “Am I Racist?” opened Friday in over 1,500 theaters. Related: Saira Rao Privately Slams ‘Am I Racist?’ As ‘Nazi White Supremacy Film’
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Wire Feed
Daily Wire Feed
1 y

Follow The Money: Funding The Biden-Harris Migrant Crisis
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

Follow The Money: Funding The Biden-Harris Migrant Crisis

The following is an edited transcript of a Morning Wire interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and Lora Ries, Director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation. The concerns raised by citizens of Springfield, Ohio about the impact of a massive influx of Haitian migrants were amplified this week after former President Trump brought the town up in his debate with Vice President Harris. While the legacy media has attempted to dismiss the concerns raised by residents there, more details have emerged, revealing troubling and far deeper issues driving the crisis in the small Rust Belt town. We sat down with an expert to follow the money on mass migration in the U.S., and zero in on the Biden-Harris administration’s role in promoting it.  * * * JOHN: Joining us now is Lora Ries, Director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at Heritage. Lora, thanks for joining us. Now, there’s been so much attention on Springfield, Ohio this week because of the debate. We had a committee hearing on Tuesday night where a lot of people came forward from the community talking about situations that are extremely alarming, including some deaths. We’ve had the tragic death of the 11-year-old due to a Haitian migrant who was driving erratically, hitting a school bus. We also had a report that came out Tuesday night from one of the residents saying that her mother, she believes, was killed by a Haitian driver. But the overarching story here is that there are 60,000 people in this town and a reported 20,000 Haitians who are now working in the area, which is obviously a massive population and culture shift. What do we know so far about this situation? LORA: Yes, unfortunately, Springfield is just one example of so many communities, whether it’s small towns, but even large cities that have been suffering under the crush of humanity, dropped off in their communities and towns and cities throughout the country, under the Biden-Harris administration. Because when you look at the numbers that Customs and Border Protection reports – over 10.2 million enforcement actions, inadmissible aliens encountered nationwide, the vast majority of which are being released into the U.S. according to DHS Secretary Mayorkas. Plus another well over two million known “gotaways.” They’re coming to our towns, and so right now the spotlight is on Springfield, and rightly so, because American citizens there are suffering from too many people and too few resources. If you are literally increasing the population by one-third of people, no matter where they’re from, communities can’t sustain that. The public schools, the classrooms are overflowing with students, most of whom don’t speak English or it’s not their first language, which then triggers the need for translators and other services that the schools and districts weren’t prepared for and don’t have the money for. Same thing for healthcare, long waits in emergency rooms to see a doctor, to see a specialist – and the cost to all of this. And that doesn’t even get to the crime that the citizens there are reporting on and people being killed. So it is a microcosm right now in the spotlight and rightly so. And if it is waking up more Americans to what is happening under this administration due to their open border policies, then I’m glad more Americans are waking up to the situation. JOHN: Now again, the reports are around 20,000, specifically Haitians in this area. What have we seen from the Biden administration regarding their policy with Haitians in particular? LORA: So this population could have come in at least three different ways under this administration. First of all, the Secretary of Homeland Security has created dozens of immigration parole programs – unconstitutionally and unlawfully – to bring in tens of thousands of inadmissible aliens each month. One such program is for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. And so each month, 30,000 aliens without visas from those four countries come into the U.S. and are resettled. So that’s one way this Haitian population could be in Springfield. Another is a program called Temporary Protected Status, which is, Congress intended it to be, about protecting foreign nationals who were already in the U.S. when either a natural disaster, like a volcano or a hurricane happens in their home country, or there are temporary emergency situations. And that’s the language, the clause that the Mayorkas DHS used for Haiti. The problem is this TPS gets extended over and over and over again, over sometimes decades for some countries. And so it is no longer “temporary.” It becomes a permanent form of relief. And Secretary Mayorkas also ”re-designates” Haiti, just did so, for TPS. Now re-designation is nowhere in the immigration statute. But what that does is it moves the date to more recent waves of Haitians who have illegally come into the U.S. to make them eligible for this protection. That was not the intent of Congress at all. The third way this population could be there is if they were resettled as refugees. However, many Haitians have not been in Haiti for a number of years. They were safely resettled in the third country, including Mr. Joseph, who was the one who killed the young boy and injured 20 other students on that school bus you mentioned. He left Haiti, I want to say in 2014, but he didn’t come to the U.S. until 2022. That means he was safely resettled in a third country and would not be eligible for refugee protection here in the U.S. LISTEN: Catch the full interview on the Saturday Extra edition of Morning Wire JOHN: And you made a point there that the people who have this protected status have come over illegally. They were illegal immigrants, then granted protected status after the fact, correct? LORA: Right. If you were here legally, you don’t need TPS. Right. So it’s, in essence, it’s for someone who’s here, either they snuck across the border or they came in with a visa and overstayed. But if they were here lawfully, they wouldn’t need TPS. For the parole, Mayorkas is mass paroling inadmissible aliens into the country. What that means is the law requires you to go get a visa with the State Department overseas and then come to the U.S. So all of these parolees do not have a visa because he’s directed would-be illegal aliens, “Hey, don’t cross illegally over the border between ports of entry. Use the CBP Mobile One application, make an appointment, go to a port of entry, and we will parole you in and give you work authorization.” For now they still don’t have visas. It doesn’t make them lawful. CBP is reporting those as enforcement actions. And so if they were here lawfully, CBP would not be reporting them. JOHN: Now, there’s been a lot of conflicting reports about what’s happening in Springfield. We have a reporter on the ground looking into many of them. One report we’re hearing is that residents are seeing migrants using specific debit cards or credit cards. If that’s true, where would those be coming from? Could they be coming from NGOs? LORA: They could be. We’ve seen that in other locations, New York City for example, but all the way throughout Mexico and Central America. The Biden-Harris administration has set up quite an infrastructure with NGOs from Panama North all the way to the U.S. and throughout the U.S. to facilitate this mass migration, and whether that’s transporting them, giving them debit cards. The UNHCR has been involved in giving debit cards to the migrants in Central America. We give billions of dollars through the State Department to UNHCR and other organizations. And so it’s consistent with that, I couldn’t pinpoint which NGO this Springfield population may have received such cards from, but it’s consistent with what this administration has been doing. JOHN: You know, we hear the term “non-governmental organizations,” but you’re saying they work in coordination with the federal government. And they receive federal funds, correct? LORA: Absolutely. Billions of dollars. This has truly become an industrial complex. These NGOs, including faith-based organizations, like Catholic Charities or Lutheran Immigrant Refugee Services or HIAS, the Hebrew equivalent, Church World Services, the list goes on and on. For many of these groups, they now receive more money through federal grants than they do from church donations and so they’ve become very addicted to it. Many of them, if not all of them, are 501c3, they’re tax exempt, and yet they’re spending money to hire lobbyists to advocate for more immigration and to lobby against immigration enforcement. So it’s become a very corrupt, but lucrative business for these groups that this administration relies so heavily on to carry out its open border agenda. JOHN: Have we seen any congressional action related to these NGOs? Are there any investigations going on to look into how these are being possibly abused? LORA: There have been some. There have been letters to organizations, to corporations. The most promising aspect was in H.R.2, the Secure the Border Act which the House passed in May of 2023. There was a section in there about defunding money to these NGOs that facilitate illegal immigration. It drew quite the debate when it was being considered in the House Homeland Security Committee. And the lobbyists that these NGOs hire came out in force to lobby against this provision calling for the stripping of funds. Of course, that bill now sits on Senator Schumer’s desk, not going anywhere. And then meanwhile, Congress continues to fund, through each year’s appropriations bill as well as the supplemental bill they passed this April for Ukraine and Israel. But it is billions of dollars going through multiple departments, whether it’s the State Department, DHS, Health and Human Services, for example, in the Ukraine, Israel supplemental. The State Department received $3.5 billion for “Vulnerable Populations” in the migration and refugee assistance. And the president’s International Disaster Assistance Fund for “Vulnerable Populations” received $5.6 billion. So these are slush funds that can be used easily to facilitate mass migration. Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here! JOHN: Now, finally, there’s been a lot of discussion about the sanctuary city status in some of these cities, particularly New York City as of late. Are some of these small towns sanctuary cities without people realizing it? Or do they have certain designations as places that are friendly to the resettlement of massive populations like this? LORA: It can be a range of how expressly political leaders declare the city or town to be a sanctuary locality. I mean, in some cases you have mayors going on the record – Athens, Georgia, mayor comes to mind, before Laken Riley was killed, being a sanctuary jurisdiction. But in other communities it could be simply a sheriff or a mayor directing law enforcement not to cooperate with ICE — if ICE places a detainer on a criminal alien to prevent a criminal from being released back onto the street. So it can be a de facto sanctuary jurisdiction, or it could be a very public express, sanctuary jurisdiction, where they pass a law or a resolution. JOHN: Final question – about the media’s coverage of this story. We’ve seen a dismissive and even aggressive attack on those highlighting this development in Springfield from the legacy media. What are we to make of that? LORA: There is plenty of evidence of citizens standing up at a town hall or commission meeting saying what is happening on the ground and asking their political leaders, “What do you expect from us? If you’re protecting these illegal aliens, who’s protecting us?” Plenty of video interviews of people who live in the community, citizens explaining what’s happening. And so for the media and the Left to gaslight or attempt to the rest of America saying, ”This really isn’t happening in Springfield, things are fine.” Well, that’s consistent with how they’ve been treating the open border for the past three plus years, but it’s not working. And to just dismiss the concern, real concerns of American citizens shows the contempt that the elite managerial class has for U.S. citizens and their “America Last” attitude. JOHN: Well, as I said, we’re on the ground there digging into this – and making sure those concerns get the attention they deserve. Lora, thank you so much for coming on, and we’d love to talk to you again. LORA: Sure, happy to. JOHN: That was Lora Ries, Director of the Heritage Border Security and Immigration Center – and this has been a Saturday Extra edition of Morning Wire.  *** LISTEN: Catch the full interview on the Saturday Extra edition of Morning Wire
Like
Comment
Share
NewsBusters Feed
NewsBusters Feed
1 y

'Do You Feel Heard': Phillip Tries To Get Jackson To Attack Court Colleagues
Favicon 
www.newsbusters.org

'Do You Feel Heard': Phillip Tries To Get Jackson To Attack Court Colleagues

CNN NewsNight anchor Abby Phillip interviewed liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Friday and repeatedly tried to get her to attack her colleagues, first as sexists and second for undermining public confidence in the Court by overturning “precedent,” by which she just meant Roe v. Wade. Phillip recalled how, “other women who actually have reached your heights, for example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg back in 2009. She told our colleague Joan Biskupic that even in spite of all of her extensive experience, her accolades, she didn't always feel like her male colleagues on the Court heard her voice. She said, ‘When I will say something and I don't think I'm a confused speaker, it isn't until someone else says it that everyone will focus on the point.’ I wonder, I mean, do you feel heard now?”     Perhaps disappointedly for Phillip and CNN’s audience, Jackson answered, “Yes, I do actually, and maybe that's just because I'm asserting myself. No, I haven't had that same experience on the Court.” Phillip then marveled, “And you are asserting yourself, asking more questions than many of your colleagues, writing forceful opinions. Is that -- is that intentional to assert yourself in this moment?” Jackson affirmed it was, “If I have a point I want to make, if I'm trying to ask my colleagues to consider an issue, then I feel very strongly that it's my obligation to speak up because this is an important seat and role, and I'm going to take full advantage of it.” The interview with Phillips was just the latest stop on Jackson’s book tour, which Phillip referenced when she tried to get Jackson to attack her conservative colleagues again, “You write in the book about this idea of precedent, which is coming up a lot lately. You talked about how your mentor, Justice Breyer, emphasized that judges are obligated to observe precedent. This Court has overturned precedent in some very significant ways. Is there a risk that in doing so, they could lose the confidence of the public?”     Jackson replied that, “precedent is very important. It is actually one of the constraints on judicial authority that has existed since the beginning of the Court. The idea that judges have limited power… Alexander Hamilton, for example, talked about, and I talk about this in the book a little bit, is that the judiciary would not be the most dangerous branch. In fact, it would be the least dangerous branch, in part because it was constrained in certain ways. And one of them is by understanding that when you get an issue, you're not looking at it cold.” By “precedent,” Phillip really meant abortion, “If years from now the composition of the Court were to change substantially and the issue of women's reproductive rights and abortion came back up, would it be appropriate for the court to revisit and perhaps even overturn the Dobbs decision?” After Jackson refused to discuss hypotheticals, Phillip tried again, “Part of the reason I'm asking these questions is, in this moment, so many Americans are looking at the courts. They see 6-3 decisions being handed down along what seems to be ideological lines. Do you have concerns about that perception that the public might think that legal differences are aligning so closely with political differences?” Jackson claimed “it is a concern for the Court… but at a sort of institutional level, the entire Court is concerned about that.” Earlier in the interview, Jackson discussed how race has impacted her life and her family living in Georgia under segregation, but segregation was a long-standing Supreme Court precedent that was also, rightly, overturned. Phillip should’ve asked about that, not just softballs about Roe. Here is a transcript for the September 13 show: CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 9/13/2024 10:31 PM ET ABBY PHILLIP: Other women who actually have reached your heights, for example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg back in 2009. She told our colleague Joan Biskupic that even in spite of all of her extensive experience, her accolades, she didn't always feel like her male colleagues on the Court heard her voice. She said, "When I will say something and I don't think I'm a confused speaker, it isn't until someone else says it that everyone will focus on the point." I wonder, I mean, do you feel heard now? KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: In the Court? PHILLIP: Yeah. JACKSON: Yes, I do actually, and maybe that's just because I'm asserting myself. No, I haven't had that same experience on the Court. PHILLIP: And you are asserting yourself, asking more questions than many of your colleagues, writing forceful opinions. Is that -- is that intentional to assert yourself in this moment? JACKSON: Well, you know, I was a judge for seven, eight years before I joined the Court. And for most of that time, I was a district judge, which is at the trial level. And you have your own courtroom. It's been a challenge, I think, to have that translate into the collective decision-making model of the Court. If I have a point I want to make, if I'm trying to ask my colleagues to consider an issue, then I feel very strongly that it's my obligation to speak up because this is an important seat and role, and I'm going to take full advantage of it. … PHILLIP: You write in the book about this idea of precedent, which is coming up a lot lately. You talked about how your mentor, Justice Breyer, emphasized that judges are obligated to observe precedent. This Court has overturned precedent in some very significant ways. Is there a risk that in doing so, they could lose the confidence of the public? JACKSON: Yes, I mean, you know, precedent is very important. It is actually one of the constraints on judicial authority that has existed since the beginning of the Court. The idea that judges have limited power. And one of the things that Alexander Hamilton, for example, talked about, and I talk about this in the book a little bit, is that the judiciary would not be the most dangerous branch. In fact, it would be the least dangerous branch, in part because it was constrained in certain ways. And one of them is by understanding that when you get an issue, you're not looking at it cold. PHILLIP: If years from now the composition of the Court were to change substantially and the issue of women's reproductive rights and abortion came back up, would it be appropriate for the court to revisit and perhaps even overturn the Dobbs decision? JACKSON: Oh, I'm not going to predict what would happen in the future. I can't say whether or not it's appropriate in the abstract. PHILLIP: Part of the reason I'm asking these questions is, in this moment, so many Americans are looking at the courts. They see 6-3 decisions being handed down along what seems to be ideological lines. Do you have concerns about that perception that the public might think that legal differences are aligning so closely with political differences? JACKSON: I think it is a concern for the Court, as an institution, because public confidence is basically all we have. You know, the Court does not have the power of the purse, it does not have an army, it can't make people enforce or follow its opinions. And so, it's really important for maintenance of the rule of law that people believe in the justices and their rulings especially in these very contentious cases. So, you ask me do I have a concern? Yes, but at a sort of institutional level, the entire Court is concerned about that.
Like
Comment
Share
Twitchy Feed
Twitchy Feed
1 y

OUCH. Fitness Guru Jillian Michaels Puts Gavin Newsom on BLAST Regarding His 'Trump' Crime Post
Favicon 
twitchy.com

OUCH. Fitness Guru Jillian Michaels Puts Gavin Newsom on BLAST Regarding His 'Trump' Crime Post

OUCH. Fitness Guru Jillian Michaels Puts Gavin Newsom on BLAST Regarding His 'Trump' Crime Post
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 59525 out of 101632
  • 59521
  • 59522
  • 59523
  • 59524
  • 59525
  • 59526
  • 59527
  • 59528
  • 59529
  • 59530
  • 59531
  • 59532
  • 59533
  • 59534
  • 59535
  • 59536
  • 59537
  • 59538
  • 59539
  • 59540
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund