Latest news with #radicalleft
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Chris Cuomo says AOC is 'symbol of the demise of the Democratic Party,' urges Dems to move on from her
Chris Cuomo said on his podcast Tuesday that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is a "symbol of the demise" of the Democrats and urged the party to move on from her. Cuomo warned Democrats that backing candidates like Ocasio-Cortez — who prioritize the needs of "the few over the many" — will ultimately lead to the party's downfall, calling attention given to her a "huge f-----g mistake." The former CNN anchor stated that the current meaning of "woke" is about "weighing the needs and wants of the few over the many," and that the Democrats are making that mistake once again by legitimizing the New York City congresswoman. Chris Cuomo Slams Chris Murphy For 'Cheap Shot' Suggestion That Trump Funding Cuts Played Part In Texas Floods "AOC is a major perpetrator and symbol of the demise of the Democratic Party by going too far down the road of favoring the few over the many," he said. Later on in the show, Cuomo continued his criticisms of Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist, warning Democrats that spotlighting her is aiding the rise of dangerous ideologies into the mainstream. Read On The Fox News App "I think you're making a mistake paying attention to AOC and this new deference to radical left and radical fundamentalist and radical Islamist sympathies. I think it's a huge f-----g mistake," he asserted. Cuomo reiterated that Democrats are "once again valuing the few over the many," and warned that the "pickle" they are getting themselves into by supporting Ocasio-Cortez may bring backlash upon them like they've never seen before. Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture "If you [Democrats] think trans sports got you in a pickle, you're about to be in a whole bucket of brine," he cautioned. His brother, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is currently challenging another democratic socialist, Zohran Mamdani, in the New York City mayoral race. Mamdani beat Cuomo out for the Democratic nomination last month, but Cuomo is still running in the general election. Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville seems to be on the same page as Chris Cuomo, calling out Democrats in April for allowing Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., to define the party. Carville emphasized the party's deep talent pool that they should be showcasing to help redefine its identity, rather than the ultra-progressive platform that representatives like Ocasio-Cortez promote. "There's truly depth and talent in the Democratic Party and the faster that we can get them on the field and people seeing them, and the sooner we can get people like Bernie Sanders and AOC not defining who the party is, the better off we're going to be," Carville argued. Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez's office for article source: Chris Cuomo says AOC is 'symbol of the demise of the Democratic Party,' urges Dems to move on from her
Fox News
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Chris Cuomo says AOC is 'symbol of the demise of the Democratic Party,' urges Dems to move on from her
Chris Cuomo said on his podcast Tuesday that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is a "symbol of the demise" of the Democrats and urged the party to move on from her. Cuomo warned Democrats that backing candidates like Ocasio-Cortez — who prioritize the needs of "the few over the many" — will ultimately lead to the party's downfall, calling attention given to her a "huge f-----g mistake." The former CNN anchor stated that the current meaning of "woke" is about "weighing the needs and wants of the few over the many," and that the Democrats are making that mistake once again by legitimizing the New York City congresswoman. "AOC is a major perpetrator and symbol of the demise of the Democratic Party by going too far down the road of favoring the few over the many," he said. Later on in the show, Cuomo continued his criticisms of Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist, warning Democrats that spotlighting her is aiding the rise of dangerous ideologies into the mainstream. "I think you're making a mistake paying attention to AOC and this new deference to radical left and radical fundamentalist and radical Islamist sympathies. I think it's a huge f-----g mistake," he asserted. Cuomo reiterated that Democrats are "once again valuing the few over the many," and warned that the "pickle" they are getting themselves into by supporting Ocasio-Cortez may bring backlash upon them like they've never seen before. "If you [Democrats] think trans sports got you in a pickle, you're about to be in a whole bucket of brine," he cautioned. His brother, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is currently challenging another democratic socialist, Zohran Mamdani, in the New York City mayoral race. Mamdani beat Cuomo out for the Democratic nomination last month, but Cuomo is still running in the general election. Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville seems to be on the same page as Chris Cuomo, calling out Democrats in April for allowing Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., to define the party. Carville emphasized the party's deep talent pool that they should be showcasing to help redefine its identity, rather than the ultra-progressive platform that representatives like Ocasio-Cortez promote. "There's truly depth and talent in the Democratic Party and the faster that we can get them on the field and people seeing them, and the sooner we can get people like Bernie Sanders and AOC not defining who the party is, the better off we're going to be," Carville argued. Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez's office for comment.
CNN
12-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Could Trump ‘run' New York City?
President Donald Trump issued a provocative threat during a Cabinet meeting this week: If New York City elects a 'communist' mayor, he might take the city over, just like he might take over Washington, DC. 'We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to,' he said. He was referring to the rise of Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee in New York's upcoming mayoral race. Mamdani is not a communist, but rather a democratic socialist in the vein of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The president clearly sees the would-be mayor as an A-list political enemy he'll use to argue the Democratic Party has been overtaken by the 'radical left.' His increasing use of the word 'communist' harks back to the ugliness of the Red Scare. Trump also trotted out some profanity in the Cabinet Room of the White House when he referred to Mamdani as 'a man who's not very capable, in my opinion, other than he's got a good line of bullsh*t.' It's the latest in a string of increasingly charged accusations Trump has made, including that Mamdani, who is a naturalized citizen, might be in the US illegally, something for which there is no evidence. That kind of attack will sound familiar to anyone who remembers Trump's incessant and false questioning of President Barack Obama's birth certificate. But the idea that Trump might try to 'run' New York if Mamdani wins is something else — a warning to New York voters and a new threat to expand presidential power. Does that mean starving the city of federal funds or something more drastic? It would also be pretty clearly unconstitutional for him to try to 'run' the city, according to Elizabeth Goitein, an expert on presidential power at the Brennan Center for Justice. When I asked her what presidential authority would allow him to do so, her answer was short. 'Not run a city,' she said, pointing to the 10th Amendment, which gives powers not enumerated in the Constitution back to the states. 'There's no emergency power that allows the president to take over a city,' she said, and particularly not in retaliation for electing a mayor the president disagrees with. He has tested the Constitution repeatedly during his second term — trying to reinterpret the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship and reimagine the federal bureaucracy without passing any laws. But Goitein pointed to key decisions, including a rejection of Trump's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act to more swiftly deport people without due process, to argue the courts remain a meaningful check on the administration. Trump's advisers, CNN has reported, considered using the Insurrection Act, another antiquated law from the early days of the republic, to broadly use federal troops for law enforcement in Los Angeles to help federal deportation agents. Instead, they ended up citing more recent law that allows the federal government to take control of a state's National Guard, for which California is now suing the administration. Goitein said the deployment of troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, by the Eisenhower administration was in the service of a Supreme Court Order. 'That's very different from a city electing a mayor with whose policies the president opposes,' she said. Martial law was declared in Hawaii during World War II, she said, but it was authorized by a law that no longer exists. Trump also referred at the White House to the possibility that he could also take over Washington, DC, something that he has been talking about for years. There's clear precedent for the federal government being in charge of the nation's capital. It's in the Constitution, after all, something that has always complicated efforts by progressives and Democrats to grant statehood to DC. But Congress ceded self-governance to district residents back in 1973, with a law signed by President Richard Nixon, who described himself as 'a longtime supporter of self-government for the District of Columbia.' The CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali, a former director of the Nixon Presidential Library, told me Nixon did take the idea of self-governance seriously, including for DC residents. Trump has described DC today as 'a nightmare of murder and crime,' but back then it was literally reeling and still rebuilding after riots destroyed city blocks following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. Naftali pointed out that Nixon was close with the city's mayor, Walter Washington, who advocated for the construction of the Metro subway system and installed the city's first public defender. 'Nixon's view of the District of Columbia was that the residents of the district could best govern themselves,' Naftali told me. 'I do not believe that is Donald Trump's view at all.' The law Nixon signed allowed Washingtonians to vote for their first-ever popularly elected mayor in 1974. Conservatives in Congress today want to take that power back and have introduced a bill, the 'BOWSER Act' (so named to troll DC Mayor Muriel Bowser), to repeal DC's home rule and put the city more under federal control. Trump aligns with Bowser on one key DC issue: the reconstruction of RFK stadium as a home for the Washington Commanders, although the proposal is currently stalled before DC's city council. He promised to 'renovate it, and rebuild our capital city,' but so far that has included the issuance of an executive order and creation of a committee focused on surging police into the streets and creating a beautification plan. Trump said his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, has been working with DC's mayor. And Bowser has been notably uncritical of the Trump administration in his second term. Domingo Morel is an associate professor of political science and public service at New York University who has written about the ugly history of states taking over things like school boards or imposing their will on cities, frequently those with large Black and minority populations, and taking power from the local populations. Trump is implying something similar here, Morel told me. 'He's saying to New Yorkers, 5 million or so registered voters, 'Whatever you say doesn't matter; we're going to take away your ability to govern because we don't like the way you have decided to vote.'' That's assuming Mamdani wins, which is a big assumption, given the fact that current Mayor Eric Adams and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo will both be on the ballot on Election Day. Meanwhile, former New Yorker Trump will be chiming in with vague threats.
ABC News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Donald Trump chalks up 'giant win' as Supreme Court limits judges' power to block his orders
Donald Trump is celebrating what he calls a "giant win" after the US Supreme Court limited the power of federal judges to block the president's executive orders. The court issued a 6-3 ruling on Friday, local time, in a case built on the president's executive order on removing birthright citizenship, which would strip the children of undocumented and illegal migrants born in America of the right to automatic US citizenship. Speaking at a White House press conference called after the ruling, Mr Trump said it had been a victory over "radical left judges" whose behaviour he considered "a great threat to democracy". However, the ruling authored by conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Mr Trump's policy on birthright citizenship go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservative justices in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Mr Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law," Justice Barrett wrote. "But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote: "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." On his first day back in office, Mr Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Mr Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal", injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor said Mr Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the executive to stop enforcing it against anyone". "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along." Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Mr Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Mr Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside". The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the US, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Mr Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Mr Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. US Solicitor General D John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Mr Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors". An 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v Wong Kim Ark has long been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the US to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Mr Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States". Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties — Republican and Democratic — and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties. Reuters/ABC
Wall Street Journal
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
The Public Needs Campus Viewpoint Diversity
President Trump began acting on his pledge to end wokeness by targeting DEI and critical race theory in universities and the federal government. While this was a good first step, shutting down woke programs goes only so far; it limits what bad actors in academia can do, but it leaves those bad actors in place. Without broader staffing reforms, radical left-wing professors will still control higher education. Several states are trying to dictate what professors should and shouldn't teach, but these efforts similarly don't reach the core of academia's sickness—the political monopoly that guarantees its continued malignancy.
