Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Pope Meets With JD Vance After Criticism of Trump Administration

      by

      Vice President JD Vance met with Pope Francis at the pontiff’s residence in Rome on Sunday, the Vatican said, in a previously unannounced visit during Easter celebrations.The Vatican said the meeting was a “brief” exchange of Easter wishes that lasted “a few minutes.” In a photograph released by the Vatican, the pope is seated in a wheelchair opposite Mr. Vance as the pair talk.The meeting came after the pope criticized the Trump administration’s deportation policies and urged Catholics to reject anti-immigrant narratives, in an unusually direct attack on the American government.The rebuke came in the form of an open letter to American bishops in February, with some of the pope’s criticisms apparently leveled directly at statements made by Mr. Vance.Mr. Vance, who was baptized as a Catholic six years ago, has been spending Holy Week in Rome with his family. He attended the Good Friday service in St. Peter’s Basilica. On Saturday, Mr. Vance met with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, and with Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican’s foreign minister.Mr. Vance had not been expected to meet the pope, who only recently left the hospital after spending five weeks there in serious condition. The pope has made unannounced appearances since his hospital stay, but his health tightly restricts his planned engagements.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Israel’s Military Cites ‘Professional Failures’ in Killings of Gaza Medics

      by

      In a statement summarizing its investigation into the deadly episode, the military said a deputy commander would be dismissed.The Israeli military said Sunday that an investigation into its soldiers’ deadly attack on medics in Gaza last month had identified “several professional failures” and that a commander would be dismissed.The military had previously acknowledged carrying out the attack in Rafah, southern Gaza, that killed 14 rescue workers and a United Nations employee who drove by after the others were shot. But it had offered shifting explanations for why its troops fired on the emergency vehicles and said it was investigating the episode, one that prompted international condemnation and that experts described as a war crime.On Sunday — nearly a month after the attack — the military released a statement summarizing its investigation.“The examination identified several professional failures, breaches of orders, and a failure to fully report the incident,” it said.The deadly shootings of the rescue workers resulted from “an operational misunderstanding” by troops on the ground “who believed they faced a tangible threat from enemy forces.” Firing on a U.N. vehicle, the statement added, involved “a breach of orders” in a combat setting.Israeli troops fired on ambulances and a fire truck sent by the Palestine Red Crescent Society and the Civil Defense, as well as the United Nations vehicle that passed by separately, according to witness accounts, video and audio of the attack.The military said on Sunday that “due to poor night visibility,” the deputy commander on the ground “did not initially recognize the vehicles as ambulances.”Palestinians in Khan Younis, Gaza, mourned medics on March 31 who were killed by Israeli fire while on a rescue mission.Hatem Khaled/ReutersTwo weeks ago, the Israeli military acknowledged that some of its early assertions, based on accounts from troops involved in the killing, were partly mistaken.Military officials had initially asserted, repeatedly and erroneously, that the vehicles were “advancing suspiciously” toward the troops “without headlights or emergency signals.”The military backtracked on that assertion a day after The New York Times published a video, discovered on the cellphone of one of the dead paramedics, that showed the clearly marked vehicles flashing their lights and coming to a halt before the attack.Israeli soldiers later buried most of the bodies in a mass grave, crushed the ambulances, fire truck and a U.N. vehicle, and buried those as well.In the statement on Sunday, the Israeli military said that “removing the bodies was reasonable under the circumstances, but the decision to crush the vehicles was wrong.”The commander of the brigade involved will receive a reprimand “for his overall responsibility for the incident,” it said, while the battalion’s deputy commander will be dismissed because of his responsibilities “and for providing an incomplete and inaccurate report during the debrief.”Bilal Shbair More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Alito Releases Dissent in Supreme Court Decision Blocking Deportations

      by

      Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented in the Supreme Court’s decision on Saturday to block the Trump administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members under a rarely invoked 18th century wartime law, calling the court’s order “hastily and prematurely granted.”In his five-page dissent released on Saturday shortly before midnight, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that in his view, the court’s decision to intervene overnight was not “necessary or appropriate.”The court’s unsigned, one-paragraph order came after a fast-moving legal battle late Friday. The American Civil Liberties Union had rushed to several lower courts, then to the Supreme Court, claiming that the Trump administration was planning to deport more Venezuelan migrants, presumably to El Salvador, with little to no due process under the wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act.The Supreme Court’s decision ordered a pause on the deportations of the detainees while it considers the emergency application.Read Justice Alito’s DissentJustice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the Supreme Court’s decision to block the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants under a wartime law was premature.Read Document 5 pagesThe order suggested a deep skepticism on the court about whether the Trump administration could be trusted to live up to the key part of an earlier ruling that said detainees were entitled to be notified if the government intended to deport them under the law, “within a reasonable time,” and in a way that would allow the deportees to challenge the move.“In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief,” Justice Alito wrote in his dissent, “without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order.”Justice Alito said that he had refused to join the court’s order because “we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Read Justice Samuel Alito’s Dissent in the Alien Enemies Act Case

      by

      4
      A.A.R.P. v. TRUMP
      ALITO, J., dissenting
      with 24 hours to respond, and was poised to rule ex-
      peditiously. See ECF Doc. 41, at 3-4. But the Dis-
      trict Court dissolved the Government’s obligation to
      respond after counsel for applicants filed their hasty
      appeal which, in the District Court’s view, deprived
      it of jurisdiction to rule. Id., at 4-5.
      • The papers before us, while alleging that the appli-
      cants were in imminent danger of removal, provided
      little concrete support for that allegation. Members
      of this Court have repeatedly insisted that an All
      Writs Act injunction pending appeal may only be
      granted when, among other things, “the legal rights
      at issue are indisputably clear and, even then, spar-
      ingly and only in the most critical and exigent cir-
      cumstances.” South Bay United Pentecostal Church
      v. Newsom, 590 U. S.
      (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J.,
      concurring in denial of application for injunctive re-
      lief) (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks omit-
      ted) (quoting S. Shapiro, K. Geller, T. Bishop, E.
      Hartnett, D. Himmelfarb, Supreme Court Practice
      §17.4, p. 17-9 (11th ed. 2019)); see also Hobby Lobby
      Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 568 U. S. 1401, 1403 (2012)
      (SOTOMAYOR, J., in chambers); Lux v. Rodrigues,
      561 U. S. 1306, 1307 (2010) (ROBERTS, C. J., in
      chambers).
      -”
      • Although this Court did not hear directly from the
      Government regarding any planned deportations
      under the Alien Enemies Act in this matter, an at-
      torney representing the Government in a different
      matter, J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-766 (DC), in-
      formed the District Court in that case during a hear-
      ing yesterday evening that no such deportations
      were then planned to occur either yesterday, April
      18, or today, April 19.
      •
      Although the Court provided class-wide relief, the More

    • 50 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      America Wants a God

      by

      Today, we’re introducing “Believing,” a yearlong exploration from The Times on how we experience religion and spirituality now.Americans believe.Most people are wary of the government, the future and even each other, but they still believe in astonishing possibilities. Almost all Americans — 92 percent of adults — say they have a spiritual belief, in a god, human souls or spirits, an afterlife or something “beyond the natural world,” as we reported earlier this year.The country seems to be acknowledging this widespread spiritual hunger. America’s secularization is on pause, people have stopped leaving churches, and religion is taking a more prominent role in public life — in the White House, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and even at Harvard. It’s a major, generational shift. But what does this actually look like in people’s lives?I have spent the past year reporting “Believing,” a new project for The Times. This project is personal to me. I was raised a devout Mormon in Arkansas. I’ve left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I understand how wrestling with belief can define a life. I hoped to capture what that journey looked like for others, too — both inside and outside of religion. I interviewed hundreds of people, visited dozens of houses of worship and asked Times readers for their stories. More than 4,000 responded.In my reporting, I found that there are many reasons for this shift in American life. Researchers say the pandemic and the country’s limited social safety nets have inclined people to stick with (or even turn to) religion for support. But there is another reason, too: Many Americans are dissatisfied with the alternatives to religion. They feel an existential malaise, and they’re looking for help. People want stronger communities, more meaningful rituals and spaces to express their spirituality. They’re also longing to have richer, more nuanced conversations about belief.Unsatisfying alternativesIris LegendreOver the past few decades, around 40 million Americans left churches, and the number of people who say they have no religion grew to about 30 percent of the country.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      In Trump’s America, There Are No Rules, Only Access

      by

      Daniel JurmanOne of the most dramatic policy reversals in U.S. economic history happened this month. In the span of just a few days, President Trump announced sweeping tariff increases, panicking global markets, and then partially backed down — all without meaningful consultation with Congress or much evidence his administration used a rational process to arrive at the numbers.Economists, who don’t often agree on much, greeted the plan with near unanimous criticism and a fair degree of derision. Few if any political analysts could articulate a coherent rationale for why threatening to launch a trade war on most nations on earth would make strategic sense.Yet in a way it does, because the real story may not be about trade. Looked at in a different way, it’s about power.In principle, it is not up to the president to decide unilaterally whether to impose tariffs, or on which countries to impose them. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution clearly vests this authority in Congress. However, Mr. Trump made use of his powers to restrict trade under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to regulate trade during economic emergencies. The president effectively declared that the executive branch could bypass Congress’s constitutional authority.Financial markets seemed to grasp this. Unlike past global crises, this episode did not send investors fleeing into the dollar’s safety. Quite the opposite: The dollar dropped sharply when the tariffs were announced and continued to fall even after the administration reversed course. This suggests that investors are anxious about much more than just the economic damage from protectionist policies. They’re worried about the United States no longer being a safe place to hold their assets. They have good reason to be concerned.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Pope Francis Blesses Faithful at Easter Mass

      by

      The pontiff, appearing frail from a balcony at St. Peter’s Basilica, blessed a crowd gathered on the square outside. But a Vatican aide delivered a papal address that focused on global conflicts.Pope Francis on Sunday blessed tens of thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square for Easter Mass, his weak, raspy voice a reminder of his frailty less than a month after being discharged from a lengthy hospital stay for life-threatening pneumonia.A roar erupted from the crowd in the square when the pope appeared in a wheelchair on a balcony at Saint Peter’s Basilica and raised a hand in greeting.“Dear brothers and sisters, Happy Easter,” the pope said. Then he waited as Archbishop Diego Ravelli, a Vatican aide delivered the “Urbi et Orbi,” a papal address delivered at Easter and Christmas.After the address, Francis blessed those present, then waved. The crowds gathered in the square cheered, and called out “Viva il Papa,” or “Long Live the Pope.”Before his appearance, the pope met “for a few minutes” with Vice President JD Vance, who was spending the Easter weekend in Rome, according to the Vatican.When Francis was discharged from the hospital on March 23, his doctors advised him to take it easy for at least two months as he convalesced — and to steer clear of crowds and situations where he could be exposed to germs. His doctor said Francis had almost died in the hospital, where he spent five weeks being treated for pneumonia and other complications.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why Saudi Arabia Supports Trump’s Nuclear Talks With Its Rival, Iran

      by

      The agreements are shaping up to be very similar. But Gulf support for a nuclear deal shows how much the region has changed.Ten years ago, when former President Barack Obama and other leaders reached a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program, Saudi Arabia was dismayed.Saudi officials called it a “weak deal” that had only emboldened the kingdom’s regional rival, Iran. They cheered when President Trump withdrew from the agreement a few years later.Now, as a second Trump administration negotiates with Iran on a deal that might have very similar contours to the previous one, the view from Saudi Arabia looks quite different.The kingdom’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement recently saying that it hoped the talks, mediated by neighboring Oman, would enhance “peace in the region and the world.”Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman even dispatched his brother, the defense minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, to Tehran, where he was received warmly by Iranian officials dressed in military regalia. He then hand-delivered a letter to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a man whom Prince Mohammed once derided as making “Hitler look good.”What changed? Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have warmed over the past decade. As important, Saudi Arabia is in the middle of an economic diversification program intended to transform the kingdom from being overly dependent on oil into a business, technology and tourism hub. The prospect of Iranian drones and missiles flying over Saudi Arabia because of regional tensions poses a serious threat to that plan.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More