Paul Whelan describes challenges of returning home after being imprisoned abroad
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas' gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP
The brazen partisan redistricting underway in Texas, with Republicans attempting to entrench themselves in office and Democrats weighing a counter-offensive in blue states, was greenlit by the US Supreme Court six years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts, in an opinion for a 5-4 court, declared that federal judges could not review extreme partisan gerrymanders to determine if they violated constitutional rights. Roberts' opinion reversed cases that would have allowed such districts – drawn to advantage one political party over another irrespective of voters' interests – to be challenged as violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and association and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The justices split among the familiar ideological lines, with the five conservatives ruling against partisan gerrymanders and the four liberals dissenting. 'Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one,' dissenting justices warned in 2019, 'The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.' That decision in Rucho v. Common Cause has generated a new era of partisan rivalry with vast repercussions for American democracy. The decision resonates as profoundly as the Roberts Court's decision last year in Trump v. United States, which granted presidents substantial immunity from criminal prosecution (also delivered among partisan lines). Trump has taken the 2024 ruling as a blank check, tearing through democratic norms. The gerrymandering case also lifted a federal guardrail. Lawsuits challenging extreme partisan gerrymanders can still be brought before state court judges. But state laws vary widely in their protections for redistricting practices and state judges differ in their ability to police the thorny political process. Roberts may have failed to foresee the consequences in 2019 and then in 2024. Or, alternatively, perhaps he understood and simply believed the effects were not properly the concern of the federal judiciary. In his opinion, Roberts acknowledged the apparent unfairness of gerrymandered districts. 'Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,' he wrote. But, he said, 'the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles,' … does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.' The chief justice said no constitutional authority exists for judges to oversee the politics of redistricting, nor are there standards for their decisions, that is, to know when state lawmakers have gone too far in what is an inherently political process. Roberts wrote: ''How much is too much?' At what point does permissible partisanship become unconstitutional?' The current redistricting controversy arises from Trump's pressure on fellow Republicans to generate as many GOP-controlled districts as possible before the 2026 midterm elections for the US House of Representatives. Right now, the focus is on Texas where legislators broke from the usual cycle of post-census redistricting that happens every 10 years and suddenly proposed a new map intended to push several Democrats out of office and buttress the chances that Republicans keep their majority, now hanging by a thread, in Congress. The audacious Texas effort has prompted liberals to consider a counterattack in Democratic-controlled states such as California to create new maps that could boost their numbers. But politicians' effort to draw lines to their advantage have never been free of controversy. The paired cases before the justices six years ago involved extreme gerrymanders by Republicans in North Carolina and by Democrats in Maryland. Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote was crucial. A year earlier, Kavanaugh had succeeded Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had previously left the door open to federal court challenges to partisan gerrymanders. Justice Elena Kagan, taking the lead for dissenters, insisted workable standards existed and had been used by lower US court judges. 'For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation,' she wrote, pointing up the stakes. 'The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives,' Kagan added. She was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who remains on the bench, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020, and Stephen Breyer, who retired in 2022. Echoing a line from redistricting precedent that appears apt as Texas legislators divide voters for predetermined results, Kagan wrote that a core principle of government is 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.'
New York Times
15 minutes ago
- New York Times
Tesla Awards ‘Good Faith' Shares to Musk Worth $29 Billion
Tesla granted shares to Elon Musk worth around $29 billion, the company said on Monday, describing it as a 'good faith' award to help retain the car maker's chief after his previous multibillion-dollar pay package was struck down by a judge. The company approved a package of 96 million shares for Mr. Musk, which he could tap after two years of service in a 'senior leadership role' at Tesla. The mercurial billionaire, whose business empire includes rockets, artificial intelligence, brain implants and more, hinted last month that he wanted more shares in Tesla, on top of his 13 percent stake. It was a 'major concern,' he said on an earnings call with analysts. Tesla said in a letter to investors that 'we know that one of your top concerns is keeping Elon's energies focused on Tesla.' It said the stock award was 'a critical first step toward achieving that goal.' In addition to his businesses, Mr. Musk has dove into politics, steering President Trump's cost-cutting initiative before they had a falling out, after which the tech billionaire pledged to start a new political party. Mr. Musk's previous pay package, awarded in 2018, was struck down last year by Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery, ruling that shareholders had not been properly informed of its details and that members of Tesla's board were not sufficiently independent. Tesla has appealed the decision, with its lawyers arguing that two shareholder votes in favor of the package should have cleared the way for reinstating it. Tesla is in a profit slump, and the company has not reported an increase in quarterly earnings since the third quarter of 2024. Sales also declined this spring. The company's stock has fallen nearly 20 percent this year.
New York Times
15 minutes ago
- New York Times
U.S. Envoy Is Expected to Visit Russia as Trump's Ukraine Deadline Nears
Steve Witkoff, President Trump's envoy for peace missions, may travel to Russia this week as the United States continues to press the Kremlin to agree to a peace deal in Ukraine, Mr. Trump said. Mr. Witkoff 'may be going to Russia' on Wednesday or Thursday, the president told reporters late Sunday. The visit would come as Mr. Trump's 10-day ultimatum nears for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to agree to a cease-fire in Ukraine or face U.S. sanctions. Asked what Mr. Witkoff's message for Russia would be, Mr. Trump said: 'We've got to get to a deal where people stop getting killed.' Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin's spokesman, told Russian news agencies on Monday that it would 'not rule out the possibility' of a meeting between Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Putin this week. Frustrated by deadly Russian attacks in Ukraine and a lack of progress on talks, Mr. Trump said on July 28 that he would give Moscow 10 to 12 days to end the conflict or face a new round of financial penalties. Mr. Trump has repeatedly threatened to punish Russia over its escalating attacks in Ukraine but so far has not followed through. Asked late Sunday what would happen if Russia does not agree to end the war by his deadline, Mr. Trump said: 'Well, there will be sanctions, but they seem to be pretty good at avoiding sanctions.' Mr. Trump began his presidency with overtures to Mr. Putin, claiming that Ukraine had provoked Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022 and that Moscow wanted the war to end. Although he initially welcomed Washington's mediation efforts with Ukraine, Mr. Putin has been dragging his feet on a number of cease-fire offers. He has also suggested counterproposals or insisted that a simple cease-fire would not resolve the underlying causes of the conflict as Moscow sees them. Mr. Putin has not directly responded to the White House's ultimatum, but has said that people who are disappointed with the lack of quick progress toward a peace deal have 'inflated expectations.' Russian and Ukrainian officials last met briefly in Istanbul in July for talks aimed at ending their war, but made little headway. The Kremlin is unlikely to halt hostilities immediately, observers say, as Russian troops are waging a summer offensive in Ukraine and have been making territorial gains. Meanwhile, Ukraine has been struggling with delays in arms shipments and insufficient combat troops. In another sign of his frustrations with Russia, Mr. Trump said on Friday that he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be repositioned in response to social media threats from Dmitri Medvedev, Russia's former president. It was unclear whether any submarines had changed position.
