Month: October 2024

Outside of his bubble, Trump flails at Univision town hall

Posted on by Oliver Willis

Donald Trump participated in a town hall with voters hosted by Univision on Wednesday night, and the event was a showcase of the headwinds Trump faces when he ventures outside of his right-wing bubble.

During the 2024 campaign, Trump has rarely faced questions from those who aren’t already supporters, and he has largely avoided media outlets that do not have a conservative bias. The voters who spoke to Trump at the Univision event respectfully questioned Trump on important issues, but he often veered off into unrelated ranting or avoiding the subject.

Ramiro González, a former registered Republican, told Trump he was disillusioned by the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and Trump’s role in inciting the attack. He asked Trump to win back his vote by explaining his behavior during the attack and his mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump restated his claim that he did nothing wrong on the day of the attack, despite his speech that day telling supporters to “fight like hell.” Trump also lied and said there were no guns at the attack, but there were.

“That was a day of love,” Trump said, as González looked on skeptically.

YouTube Video

Another voter asked Trump why he pressured Republicans to kill a bipartisan border-security bill. Instead of answering, Trump filibustered and discussed his support for “strong” borders and complained about crime in cities run by Democratic officials.

YouTube Video

Trump also continued to promote the debunked racist conspiracy theory that he and running mate JD Vance have advanced. Trump told voters he claimed Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating domestic animals because “I was just saying what was reported,” adding that migrants “are eating other things, too, that they’re not supposed to be.”

YouTube Video

Trump’s poor showing on Wednesday comes after Vice President Kamala Harris was the guest of a Univision town hall last week. At that event, Harris expressed sympathy for a woman whose mother died after her immigration status held up medical care.

The troubled outing for Trump also stands in contrast to his appearance at an all-woman town hall event on Fox News, which the network aired Wednesday morning. That audience was more receptive to Trump, but the network failed to disclose that the crowd was packed with supporters picked out by the Georgia Federation of Republican Women.

At around the same time as Trump’s Univision event, Harris sat for an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier. Despite his hostile questioning, Harris deftly handled the inquiry and even called out the network for deceptively editing comments from Trump.

Earlier on the day of Trump’s Univision town hall, which took place in Doral, Florida, the Harris campaign hosted a nearby press conference with families who had been impacted by Trump’s policy of separating families at the border.

YouTube Video

“I had no bed sheets, no bed, no nothing,” a young man identified as Billy told reporters, recounting his experience in detention. He said he was held in a room where the temperature was set to around 54 to 55 degrees.

Trump’s family-separation policy was widely condemned across the world, and the Biden-Harris administration has since devoted resources to reunifying affected families.

 

We need your help if we’re going to defeat Trump, Vance, Project 2025, and Republicans up and down the ballot. Click here to volunteer to write letters so we can increase voter turnout.

Campaign Action

Comer report reveals Biden-Harris admin’s ‘rampant waste, fraud, abuse’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer revealed his committee’s oversight work of the Biden-Harris administration, telling Fox News Digital that Americans "cannot afford" another term of "incompetence."

Vice President Kamala Harris has "been an active participant in the worst administration in U.S. history that has inflicted untold harm on the American people," Comer told Fox News Digital. 

Comer compiled a 72-page report with the committee’s "118th Congress accomplishments," highlighting the committee’s work — including its investigation into the Biden family’s domestic and international business dealings, oversight of the Biden-Harris administration’s border crisis, as well as probing the fraud and abuse related to COVID unemployment relief benefits and the infiltration of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the U.S. 

"Republicans on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee are committed to achieving what Democrats have neglected: rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse within the federal government and holding the Biden-Harris Administration accountable," he said. "We have succeeded."

BIDEN COMMITTED ‘IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT,’ ‘DEFRAUDED UNITED STATES TO ENRICH HIS FAMILY’: HOUSE GOP REPORT

"Our thorough oversight and investigations have revealed rampant waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in the Biden-Harris Administration, and we’ve provided the transparency and accountability the American people demand," Comer said. 

The report included the committee’s latest Secret Service oversight following the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump at his Butler, Pennsylvania, rally in July. Then-Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned the day after she publicly testified before the committee. 

"Americans cannot afford another four years of the same failed policies and incompetence," Comer told Fox News Digital. 

"Vice President Kamala Harris has been an active participant in the worst administration in U.S. history that has inflicted untold harm on the American people," Comer continued. "We must return to pro-growth, America-first policies to restore prosperity, liberty, and security for the American people."

During the 118th Congress, the House Oversight Committee held 135 hearings, sent more than 600 investigative letters, issued 51 subpoenas, heard testimony from 112 government witnesses and saw 23 bills passed in the House — with three signed into law. 

The committee investigated the Biden family’s business dealings, finding that from 2014 to the present, Biden family members and their associates received more than $27 million from foreign individuals or entities. The committee claimed that the family set up shell companies to conceal the payments from scrutiny. 

The White House previously ripped the investigation as an "evidence-free, politically-motivated" probe. 

Comer also co-led the impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Comer’s Oversight Committee led the inquiry after its monthslong investigation into the Biden family’s business dealings, alongside the House Judiciary Committee and House Ways & Means Committee. 

The committees concluded that Biden engaged in "impeachable conduct, "abused his office" and "defrauded the United States to enrich his family."

TAXPAYERS LOST MORE THAN $100B TO COVID UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FRAUD, COMMITTEE FINDS

"We also exposed Joe Biden’s corruption at the highest levels of government as he actively participated in his family’s influence peddling racket that made the Bidens millions from Chinese, Russian and other foreign entities," Comer told Fox News Digital. 

From those investigations, Comer, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department recommending Hunter Biden and James Biden be charged with making false statements to Congress about key aspects of the impeachment inquiry. 

The White House discounted the committee's investigations, calling the impeachment inquiry a "failed stunt" that "will only be remembered for how it became an embarrassment that their own members distanced themselves from as they only managed to turn up evidence that refuted their false and baseless conspiracy theories."

Following the investigation, Comer introduced the bipartisan Presidential Ethics Reform Act — a bill requiring presidents and vice presidents to disclose conflicts of interest while in office and disclose foreign payments, expensive gifts, loan transactions and tax returns during the two-year period prior to taking office, time in office, and for two years after leaving office. That bill also required presidents and vice presidents to make disclosures for immediate family members who receive foreign payments and other gifts, or who use official travel for personal business. 

HOUSE OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATING WALZ OVER 'LONGSTANDING CONNECTIONS' TO CHINA

Regarding its oversight of the Biden-Harris administration’s border crisis, Comer said the committee found there have been more than 8 million illegal immigrants encountered entering the country and over 1.9 million gotaways — illegal immigrants who avoided agents but were detected by other forms of surveillance — since they took office. 

As for China, Comer sent letters to 25 federal agencies to investigate whether officials were aware of CCP outreach to the American public. The committee held briefings with 23 federal agencies revealing "there is no cohesive, government-wide strategy to identify, deter, and defeat CCP political warfare."

The committee also found that American taxpayers lost more than $100 billion to fraud and improper payments as a result of temporary unemployment insurance programs created in response to COVID-19. 

The committee also investigated Biden-Harris administration officials implementing a "radical environmental agenda" that Comer said is "jeopardizing jobs, energy security, and national security."

SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR CHEATLE RESIGNS AFTER MOUNTING PRESSURE IN WAKE OF TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

Meanwhile, after the July 13 assassination attempt against Trump, Comer launched an oversight investigation into the U.S. Secret Service, acting "quickly" to investigate the "historic failure and prevent a similar incident from happening again in the future." 

Comer held an immediate hearing with Cheatle, who testified publicly about the egregious security lapses that led to the assassination attempt of Trump and the murder of an innocent attendee, Corey Comperatore. 

Cheatle resigned the following day. 

Most recently, Comer launched an investigation into Harris' running-mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, for alleged connections to the CCP. 

Comer said the committee's "effective, targeted oversight has led to transparency, accountability, and solutions for the American people." 

Here’s how Republicans just might lose the House

Posted on by Andrew Mangan

This year, control of the House will be determined primarily by just 26 districts. And with 22 days to go until Nov. 5, neither party has a clear advantage.

Republicans took control of the House in 2022, with the slimmest of majorities—though “control” may be overstating things. Their majority has seen constant chaos, including the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (after less than a year in leadership!), a dramatic battle to replace him, a failed impeachment of President Joe Biden, early retirements by frustrated members like Colorado Republican Ken Buck, and so much more.

All of that has given Democrats confidence that they can take back the House this year—and race ratings by The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, and Sabato’s Crystal Ball suggest it’s possible. 

Overall, Democrats are favored in 202 districts and Republicans in 207, based on the median race rating between those three organizations. Race ratings are based on collections of polling, reporting, fundraising numbers, historical trends, and other data. The ratings generally break down into these categories: Solid Democratic or Republican, Likely Democratic or Republican, Lean Democratic or Republican, and Toss-up. (Inside Elections adds a “Tilt” rating, which lives between “Lean” and “Toss-up.” But for our purposes, that rating has been standardized to “Toss-up.”)

That means control of the House will most likely be determined by 26 toss-up districts. And the polling in them holds some glimmers of hope for Democrats—who need to pick up only four seats to take back the House—as well as a few warnings.

Here’s what you need to know. 

Datawrapper Content

Race ratings are historically accurate. Cook’s 2024 analysis of its own ratings since 1984 found that it accurately predicted upward of 90% of races for governor, House, Senate, and president. And the more confident the rating, the greater the accuracy.

The 26 toss-up districts are spread across the country. Democrats currently hold 12 of those districts and Republicans 14, meaning that the GOP has slightly more at risk. If Democrats can hold all of their current seats—a huge “if”—they would need to flip only four districts to have a majority, assuming that the three current vacancies will be filled by the party that previously held them.

But even with the high accuracy of race ratings, a couple “Lean” or even “Likely” seats could flip as well. Forty-two races are not a “Solid” seat for either party.

Datawrapper Content

Additionally, six districts are pretty likely to flip: Alabama’s 2nd, Louisiana’s 6th, New York’s 22nd, and North Carolina’s 6th, 13th, and 14th districts. These are districts where the median race rating conflicts with the party that currently holds the seat. For example, those three North Carolina seats are held by Democrats, but after the Republican state legislature passed a vicious gerrymander late last year, all three seats are now solidly Republican. 

However, Republicans’ expected gains in the Tar Heel State could be offset by potential Democratic flips in Alabama, Louisiana, and New York. Democrats are favored in the former two states due to a pair of court victories that overturned illegal gerrymanders (for this year, at least). 

In New York’s 22nd, though, incumbent Republican Brandon Williams faces off against John Mannion in a “Lean D” seat. Williams, an anti-abortion extremist who has flirted with election denialism, could prove too conservative for this swingy seat. Unfortunately, the race has seen only one poll so far, and it was fielded three months ago. It showed Mannion leading by 7 percentage points. But it was also paid for by the pro-Mannion House Majority PAC—so, grain of salt.

Williams has out-raised Mannion more than 2 to 1 as of the end of June. However, new FEC reports are due Oct. 15, so it’s possible Mannion closed the money gap since then.

Unlike Senate or presidential races, those in the House receive a lot less high-quality polling. Across 435 House races, only 131 polls have been conducted since May, according to 538’s polling database, as of Friday at 11:25 AM ET. Compare that to the Pennsylvania Senate race, which alone has seen 70 since May, or the presidential race, which has gotten 1,316 national polls in the same time period.

That being said, the polling that has come out looks promising for Democrats. There are 18 House races with two or more polls since May, excluding polls conducted on behalf of a candidate’s campaign, which are pretty unreliable. Of those 18, Democrats lead in 12, including five seats currently held by a Republican. One district, held by a Republican, shows a tie. And while Republicans lead in five races, they already hold four of those seats. 

Among these 18 races, the only Democratic incumbent polling underwater is freshman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, in Washington’s 3rd District. And even then, it’s by only half of 1 point. The median race rating of her seat says it’s a toss-up.

In other words, this limited data suggests Democrats could pick up some seats—and, if the rest of the map holds, retake the majority. But the operative words there are “limited data” and “if the rest of the map holds.”

Datawrapper Content

The most-polled House race is Nebraska’s 2nd District, where Democrat Tony Vargas, a former state senator, leads incumbent Republican Don Bacon by an average of nearly 4 points. 

Despite Vargas’ fundraising running slightly behind Bacon’s as of June, he’s surely being boosted by this district’s importance at the top of the ticket. Nebraska splits its five electoral votes, awarding two to the statewide winner and one to the winner in each of its three districts. And because the 2nd District’s electoral vote could decide the presidential election this year, Democrats are really leaning into outreach there. (Polls show Vice President Kamala Harris with a consistent lead.) All that Democratic energy is no doubt helping Vargas.

But there are mixed results when it comes to the general congressional ballot, which measures whether survey respondents want a Democrat or Republican in Congress. 

The good news for Democrats? On July 21—the day that President Joe Biden ended his reelection bid—Republicans led Democrats on the generic ballot by 0.6 points, according to 538’s average. 

But now? Democrats lead by 1.3 points as of Friday. In fact, they’ve consistently led since Aug. 2, suggesting the lead is fairly solid. 

The bad news? Democrats’ generic-ballot advantage has slipped since Sept. 10, when they were leading by 2.7 points. And perhaps more importantly, they’re underperforming their polls at this time in 2020, when they led on the generic ballot by 6.8 points. 

While Democrats narrowly maintained control of the chamber in 2020, winning 222 seats to Republicans’ 213, House polls in that cycle heavily overestimated Democrats, according to analysis by 538’s Nathaniel Rakich. In fact, Rakich found that House polls overestimated Democrats in 10 of the past 13 cycles, though those amounts range from D+0.2 in the 2022 cycle—very accurate!—to D+6.1 in the 2020 cycle. Very not accurate! 

Put simply, if polling error this year resembles that in 2020, Republicans would almost certainly grow their House majority. And possibly by a lot.

At the same time, Democrats could very well retake the House if polls are as accurate as in 2022—or, better yet, if they’re overestimating Republicans. After all, Rakich’s analysis shows it’s happened three times since 1998. It could happen again.

Donate now to take the House back from Republicans!

With GOP poised to take the Senate, Democrats must do this to stop them

Posted on by Morgan Stephens

Every vote matters—more than ever. 

The latest poll from Siena College for The New York Times suggests Republicans are on track to retake the Senate, with their candidates leading in Montana—which is held by Democratic Sen. Jon Tester—as well as in Florida and Texas, Democrats’ two best pickup opportunities. 

With the retirement of Sen. Joe Manchin, Republicans are all but sure to nab his seat in dark-red West Virginia. If this poll’s results bear out, Democrats’ 51-49 Senate majority would slip to a 49-51 minority, assuming they win in every other contested Senate seat they currently hold.

This should energize every Democrat to get out to vote and drive turnout to record levels. And there’s some evidence that may already be happening.

In Montana, Tester faces Republican Tim Sheehy, a political newcomer. The Donald Trump-esque play of presenting nonexpertise as being a “political outsider” appears to have resonated in the Big Sky State. The Times poll shows Tester down 8 percentage points, with 44% to Sheehy’s 52% among likely voters. However, 538’s polling average shows a closer race, with Sheehy ahead by 5.4 points.

Losing this seat and Manchin’s would effectively halt the agenda of a President Kamala Harris if she were elected this year. It would slow down cabinet appointments or force her to use acting secretaries. It would enable politicized impeachment trials if Republicans also held their House majority. Perhaps most consequently of all, a Republican Senate majority would be able to swat down any of Harris’ potential Supreme Court nominees.

Given Tester’s long odds of holding his seat, Democrats turn to their two best Senate pickup opportunities: Texas and Florida. 

Vying for his third term, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lead’s Democrat Colin Allred by 4 points, 48% to 44% percent, in what the Times calls Democrats’ “best opportunity” for flipping a seat. The poll’s result is in line with 538’s polling average for the race, which shows Cruz ahead by 3.6 points.

In Florida, Republican Sen. Rick Scott holds a large 9-point lead over Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, 49% to 40%. That being said, 538’s polling average shows a tighter race, with Scott half that lead, at 4.5 points. 

As Daily Kos reported in September, polls are not election results, and because of that, “they can be changed by donating, mobilizing, and voting for Democratic candidates.”

Turnout is already breaking records. In New Mexico, early voting indicates a historic level of turnout. The same goes for Ohio, whose most populous county saw a higher level of first-day early voting this year than in 2016. Ohio is also where Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown is fighting to keep his seat. 538’s polling average shows him leading by 2.3 points.

But Democrats need to keep the momentum. Mobilizing their voters will be crucial in not only defending vulnerable seats but also expanding their majority where possible. Grassroots efforts, shoe-leather canvassing, and targeted outreach can make a difference in galvanizing support and turnout.

You can help turn out the vote for the election by simply chatting to your neighbors. This is a cool one! Click here to sign up for Daily Kos/Indivisible’s Neighbor2Neighbor get-out-the-vote program.

Watch DHS secretary masterfully debunk dumb FEMA controversy

Posted on by Walter Einenkel

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas appeared via satellite for the daily White House press briefing on Thursday. He was there to answer questions regarding the federal response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton.

Mayorkas was asked whether or not he felt FEMA is perpetually "underfunded" as an agency. Mayorkas gave a diplomatic but laser sharp answer directed at the do-nothing Republicans in Congress.

"Let me take a step back and widen the aperture of that question, if I may,” Mayorkas began. “A continuing resolution is not a stable way to fund the federal government.” 

He was clearly referring to Republican dysfunction in Congress which has led to a series of continuing resolutions to keep our government funded.

"The disaster relief fund, and the funding of it, should be completely nonpartisan and apolitical. This is a fund that provides much-needed relief to individuals regardless of party,” Mayorkas went on. “And I have said publicly, many a time since Hurricane Helene first hit in late September, that when our brave individuals—and I say ‘our’ meaning not just federal, but federal, state, and local—reach into flooded waters to save an individual, they are not asking about that individual's party affiliation. They are rescuing a fellow human being, and we need to be funded accordingly.”

YouTube Video

Republican Speaker Mike Johnson has already refused to commit additional disaster-relief funding in the wake of Hurricane Helene, let alone call the House back into session. Meanwhile, GOP luminaries like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is claiming someone controls the weather (she was not clear whether she meant Democrats or “elites,” but it’s certainly not Mother Nature) while voting against basic funding for FEMA, just before Helene hit.

Like many current government officials, Mayorkas has had to spend an inordinate amount of time debunking dangerous misinformation pushed by Donald Trump and other GOP officials concerning FEMA’s response to Hurricane Helene and now Milton in Florida. 

Mayorkas has long been a target of GOP ire, and he has accorded himself well by dropping fact-bombs at Republicans’ expense any chance he gets.

Donate now to support hurricane relief efforts.

Trump foe Mitt Romney resists endorsing Harris

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Republican Utah Sen. Mitt Romney won't endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president despite his outspoken criticisms of former President Trump. 

"I’ve made it very clear that I don’t want Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States," Romney said Tuesday at the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah, The New York Times reported.  

"I want to continue to have a voice in the Republican Party following this election. I think there’s a good chance that the Republican Party is going to need to be rebuilt or reoriented," he later added during the political forum. 

Romney announced last year that he would not seek re-election as a senator representing the Beehive State, and will leave office in January. The Republican has long criticized Trump, and indicated in June that he was unlikely to support the 45th president's re-election. 

'TRAITOR' LIZ CHENEY WALLOPED BY WYOMING VOTERS FOR HARRIS ENDORSEMENT, BREAK WITH GOP

"With President Trump, it’s a matter of personal character," Romney told CNN at the time. "I draw a line and say when someone has been actually found to have been sexually assaulted, that’s something I just won’t cross over in the person I wouldn't want to have as president of the United States." Romney's comments referred to a federal jury’s decision in New York City last year, which ruled Trump was not liable for the rape of E. Jean Carroll, though the former president was liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

KAMALA HARRIS TEAMS UP WITH LIZ CHENEY IN BIRTHPLACE OF REPUBLICAN PARTY

Romney has also slammed Trump for Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of the then-president breached the U.S. Capitol, arguing Trump incited an insurrection due to his "injured pride" over the 2020 election. Romney subsequently was one of seven Republican members of the Senate who voted to impeach Trump over Jan. 6. 

NIKKI HALEY DEFENDS TRUMP SUPPORT AFTER BEING CALLED OUT BY LIZ CHENEY: 'THIS IS ABOUT AMERICA'

Romney was also the only Republican who voted to impeach Trump in 2020 over abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges. Trump was acquitted in both impeachment cases, and is the only president in history who was impeached twice and acquitted twice. 

Trump has also hit back at Romney, saying in 2020 that the Utah senator "can't stand the fact that he ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of the presidency," referring to his 2012 bid for the White House, and calling him a "disgrace" that same year for voting to impeach. 

While Romney has previously broken with the GOP on other key issues, he indicated Tuesday that he will not offer his endorsement to Harris despite other Republicans recently throwing their support behind the vice president. Former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney officially endorsed Harris last week and joined her on the campaign trail in Wisconsin, while former Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger and former Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake also endorsed Harris. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Romney's office for additional comment on the matter, but did not immediately receive a reply. 

Fox News Digital's Greg Wehner contributed to this report. 

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.    

Men, please don’t take Fox News’ toxic dating advice

Posted on by kos

Fox News’ Jesse Watters took a break from his election and political propagandizing to give men some dating advice. 

Please don’t listen. 

The chyron reading “Kamala might sink with Biden’s ship” was stupid enough. It’s not the vice president who has consistently trailed in most of the key polling the entire election, with Trump struggling to even hit 46% nationally. For someone who says cringey things every single day on the air, this bit with Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller and Watters is among the worst:

Watters: We are getting a lot of texts from women about Stephen Miller. Our audience believes you are some sort of sexual matador.  Miller: Some advice to any young man out there. If you are a young man who's looking to impress the ladies, to be attractive.. the best thing you… pic.twitter.com/PMwMO3Voz1

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 9, 2024

Watters: We just have to address the elephant in the room. We are getting a lot of texts from women about [Stephen] Miller about his appearances, about his appearance. Our audience on Primetime believes you are some sort of sexual matador. What do you have to say for yourself?  

Miller: Some advice to any young man that’s out there. ... If you are a young man who's looking to impress the ladies, to be the alpha, to be attractive, the best thing you can do is wear your Trump support on your sleeve. Show that you are a real man. Show that you are not a beta. Be a proud and loud Trump supporter and your dating life will be fantastic.

First of all, no, it’s doubtful Fox News is getting “lots of texts from women” about Miller being “some sort of sexual matador.”

But maybe they got one weird-ass message. There are, after all, some pretty deranged people in the world. So Watters sees this message, or maybe not even that, and they decide to do a whole bit on it. 

This wasn’t extemporaneous. Miller had his answers queued up and ready to go. And in the script, Watters thought calling a top Trump surrogate a “sexual matador” was the way to go. 

Eww. 

But then it all gets worse, because Miller sits there with that stupid grin, and decides he’s going to lecture the poor saps watching the show about being “alpha” and not being “beta.” 

And the incels watching are being told that their dating fortunes can be turned around if only they hump Donald Trump harder, something that has consistently been shown to destroy men’s dating lives. Who wants to date men who are drawn to Andrew Tate’s toxic brand of misogyny? 

As Tate says, “Females don’t have independent thought. They don’t come up with anything. They’re just empty vessels, waiting for someone to install the programming.” 

Is it any wonder that as the electoral gender gap continues to widen to a chasm, then a gulf, into interstellar space, conservatives now argue that women shouldn’t even have the right to vote? 

Christian nationalist Douglas Wilson continues to gripe over women having the right to vote: "The net effect of women's suffrage was not an advance in women's rights but rather part of a push to replace covenanted entities, like families, with raw individualism." pic.twitter.com/wpLMvkcyAu

— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) October 8, 2024

Conservative attacks on the 19th Amendment have picked up steam lately, like John Gibbs, a Trump-backed Michigan congressional candidate who defeated an impeachment-voting incumbent Republican. As a student in the 2000s, he argued that women did not “posess (sic) the characteristics necessary to govern” and said that men were smarter than women because they “think logically about broad and abstract ideas in order to deduce a suitable conclusion, without relying upon emotional reasoning.” He also claimed that the patriarchy is “the best model for the continued success of a society.”

If you’re wondering how much luck Gibbs has had with the ladies, well, the Muskegon Republican Party website has an interview with him that answers that question: “He has never been married, as he believes it has been God's will, but believes it will be in his future.”

Maybe Miller doesn’t actually have the best dating advice for men.

SCOTUS kicks off historic term under scrutiny amid ethics code debate

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Supreme Court begins its new term today amid lingering internal strife over several recent rulings, with details of its thorny internal deliberations selectively leaked to certain media outlets.

All of this as the nine justices have come under increasing public scrutiny and criticism over perceived blatant partisanship on hot-button issues, ethics controversies and its own wilting reputation as a body remaining above politics.

"The Supreme Court, in a sense, is on the ballot this election, or at least the future of the Supreme Court," said Thomas Dupree, an appellate attorney and former top Justice Department official. "So any time the court wades into political waters, it's going to be upsetting people, people who are on the side that loses. And they'll say the court shouldn't have got involved in the political fray. The court recognizes that it's not something that it wants to do, but in some cases, it has no choice."

JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON SAYS SHE WOULD SUPPORT AN 'ENFORCEABLE CODE' OF ETHICS FOR THE SUPREME COURT

Here are five questions confronting the Supreme Court:

Directly or indirectly, the nine members of the Supreme Court could again play an outsized role in determining who will be the next president.

There is no indication yet of another Bush v. Gore, the case in which the justices in 2000 ended ongoing litigation over the Florida election results, essentially handing the presidency to George W. Bush.

But the high court four years ago summarily refused to consider a series of lawsuits from Trump and other Republicans in five states President Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Former President Trump has again promised court challenges if he loses, and in a recent social media post, he said this election "will be under the closest professional scrutiny" and "people that cheated will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law."

Trump has proceeded with his campaign without the imminent cloud of legal jeopardy hanging over his head. His criminal sentencing in the New York business fraud conviction has been postponed until November at least.

And his two separate federal cases involving document mishandling and 2020 election interference have been deferred indefinitely. Those prosecutions could disappear entirely if Trump is elected and dismisses the Justice Department's special counsel.

All this after the Supreme Court in July ruled former presidents enjoy a substantial amount of immunity for "official acts" committed in office. Trump has used that ruling to demand both of his federal cases be dismissed.

Two justices took the unusual step of commenting publicly on its effect.

"You gave us a very hard question," Justice Neil Grouch exclusively told Fox News' "America Reports" co-anchor Sandra Smith. "It's the first time in American history that one presidential administration was seeking to bring criminal charges against a predecessor. We had to go back and look at what sources were available to us."

The Trump appointee said the Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that civil claims cannot be brought against a president "presumptively, in his official capacity, after he leaves office. Why? Because that would chill him from exercising the powers and duties of a president while he is president," Gorsuch said. "He would be overwhelmed. His political enemies would simply bring suits against him forevermore."

But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was on the losing side of the 6-3 opinion, has taken another approach.

"I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances, when we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same," she told CBS News while promoting her new book, "Lovely One: A Memoir."

The Supreme Court has already gotten involved in several pre-election challenges: allowing some redistricting maps for congressional seats to go into effect and blocking others.

And the justices last month allowed Arizona to temporarily enforce its law requiring proof of citizenship on state voter registration forms.

'STOP PRETENDING': CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST WANTS DEMS BEHIND SCOTUS ETHICS RULES TO TAKE THEIR OWN MEDICINE

Five days before President Biden withdrew as a candidate for re-election, he made the Supreme Court a major political issue. 

Word leaked from the White House on July 16 that Biden was seriously considering proposals to establish term limits for the justices, and an ethics code that would be enforceable under law, amid growing concerns they were not being held accountable.

The proposal was made public days later, including a congressional law limiting justices to 18-year terms despite the Constitution's guarantee of life tenure for all federal judges.

Biden framed it as an effort to address "recent extreme opinions the Supreme Court has handed down [that] have undermined long-established civil rights principles and protections."

Public calls for changes came after revelations of previously undisclosed free trips and gifts by the justices and lucrative book deals. Recent public polls support greater ethics reform.

Other federal judges are bound by an enforceable code of conduct, but the high court had long resisted being included. 

Under Chief Justice John Roberts' leadership, he and his colleagues adopted a revised code last year, but it still lacks any enforcement mechanism, which critics say makes it feckless and ineffective.

Fox News previously reported that the court had been privately meeting for months on how to structure a new ethics code, one that would address public concerns over its behavior without abdicating what Roberts in particular had said was the court's independence on such matters from congressional oversight.

So, the justices have near-total discretion to decide whether to abide by the new code.

But growing and very public calls for more have come from some justices in recent days.

"A binding code of ethics is pretty standard for judges," said Jackson, "and so I guess the question is: Is the Supreme Court any different? I guess I have not seen a persuasive reason as to why the court is different."

"I am considering supporting it as a general matter," she said. "I'm not going to get into commenting on particular policy proposals, but from my perspective, I don't have any problem with an enforceable code."

And Justice Elena Kagan, perhaps the most vocal advocate for an enforcement provision, said this month, "It seems like a good idea in terms of ensuring that people have confidence that we're doing exactly that. So, it seems like a salutary thing for the court."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., recently told the chief justice that the unilateral ethics code adopted by the justices falls short and needs an enforcement trigger.

In a closed-door meeting with federal judges attending a semiannual policymaking conference at the high court, Durbin was seated next to Roberts and made clear that failure by the justices to strengthen their judicial code of conduct could prompt congressional intervention.

Sources say Roberts made no commitments but thanked Durbin for the ongoing dialogue on the issue.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch urged caution, telling "Fox News Sunday" host Shannon Bream last month that he did not want to get into "what is now a political issue during a presidential election year." 

He added about the role of an independent judiciary, "It's there for the moments when the spotlight's on you, when the government's coming after you. And don't you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions? Isn't that your right as an American? And so I just say be careful."

TOP DEM PLOTS TYING SCOTUS FUNDING TO ‘ENFORCEABLE' ETHICS CODE AMID THOMAS, ALITO CONTROVERSIES

Following the contentious conclusion of the court's term in July, much was written about the "Barrett Factor" and the supposedly evolving jurisprudence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 

She has become something of a recent lightning rod on the right and left over her occasional willingness to depart from her fellow conservatives, especially in cases involving the man who appointed her in 2020.

The 52-year-old Barrett took issue with some conclusions in the former president's historic immunity ruling and criticized parts of the majority ruling keeping him on the ballot in Colorado. 

And breaking with conservatives, she separately authored pointed dissents on an obstruction case dealing with a 2021 U.S. Capitol riot suspect as well as an environmental case on federal rules to manage downwind air pollution.

Many court watchers on the left characterized her "burgeoning" legal reasoning as an "independent streak," increasingly ready to "skewer" her right-leaning colleagues and a "principled voice in the middle" with a strong set of principles that present a "different world view" from other conservative justices.

But other legal observers say it is too early to dub Barrett the new deciding vote on hot-button cases who would resist walking lockstep with any ideological bloc.

"I don't think she's really trying to become the 'swing' justice or auditioning for that role. She's calling these cases as she sees them, and she's, generally speaking, a conservative justice," said Dupree. "But what we've seen over the last term is Justice Barrett really coming into her own. She has the confidence to write separately and in some cases to break from the other conservatives when she sees the law a little differently. I suspect that will continue."

And it remains clear Barrett's conservative credentials in most cases are solid: She has ruled to strike down Roe v. Wade, expand gun rights and scale back affirmative action in higher education.

SCOTUS GIVES PARTIAL VICTORY TO GOP TRYING TO ENFORCE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO VOTE IN ARIZONA

We recently highlighted potential Supreme Court nominees in another Biden or Trump administration, based on what sources in both camps exclusively told Fox News.

Now the dynamic has shifted, with Vice President Harris heading the Democrat ticket. 

Campaign sources say the whirlwind of taking over the nomination from her boss in recent weeks has left Harris, her legal advisers and campaign team little time to focus on the what-ifs of choosing justices or broader legal policy. 

But it is a topic of particular interest to the former prosecutor, state attorney general and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Administration sources say that since taking office, she has been part of the inner circle cultivating an informal White House list of high court possibles. And Harris was deeply involved in spearheading Jackson's selection and confirmation in 2022, Biden's only Supreme Court nominee.

As a senator, her 2018 questioning at the confirmation hearings for now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh were especially contentious, and she later called for his impeachment after unproven allegations of past sexual misconduct.

Harris herself was under serious consideration for a Supreme Court seat during the Obama years, but sources say her percolating ambitions at the time were directed to elected office.

As for Trump, sources close to him tell Fox News he is expected to soon release his own preemptive list of candidates, as the Republican nominee did in 2016. That evolving list of two dozen or so names became a centerpiece of his successful campaign and later presidency.

This time, the former president will rely on those he has already named to the federal bench for the top names he would choose from to fill any Supreme Court vacancy.

VP HARRIS OUTLINES ‘ORDERLY AND SECURE’ IMMIGRATION PLAN, RIPS TRUMP IN FIRST BORDER STOP SINCE NOMINATION

The Constitution's framers viewed the judiciary as the "least dangerous branch," but to hear some politicians and pundits on both the left and right, the Supreme Court is prepared to lead the country into imminent ruin.

Such attacks on the justices are nothing new, but the tenor of the criticism, especially in a presidential year, coupled with self-inflicted missteps on ethics and docket discretion, have combined to put its nine members on the defensive.

And the public seems to have noticed.

A Gallup poll this summer found 43% approve of how the Supreme Court handles its job, with 52% disapproval. That is a drop of 15 points since 2020 (58%-38%). In 2000, 62% approved of the institution.

Especially concerning the court are continued leaks to the media of its internal, mostly secretive, operations.

A draft opinion of the 2022 "Dobbs" abortion case, published two months before the final ruling that struck down nationwide access to the procedure, sent shock waves in Washington in a massive breach of protocol.

That was followed by selective leaks in the past year over how the court decided hot-button issues like affirmative action and election redistricting.

And in recent weeks, the New York Times received leaked internal memos from the chief justice over his leading role in the Trump immunity opinion.

Court sources say the leakers, who have never been publicly identified, have further eroded institutional camaraderie and trust among the justices, long seen as essential to doing their jobs. It has led to outside partisan finger-pointing.

Roberts, who will gavel in his 20th term next week as chief justice, has not publicly responded to the latest controversies or calls for ethics reform, declining repeated invitations from the Senate to testify.

It reflects his "less is best" approach to explaining and promoting his own court's resolution of thorny legal and political issues.  

In September 2022, after the abortion ruling was issued, he said, "Simply because people disagree with opinions is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court. I think just moving forward from things that were unfortunate is the best way to respond," he said.

And he has carefully glided over his role to force internal change and to defend his court's reputation all while being unable to stop the continuing leaks over their deliberations.

"It seems like at times they're [leakers] motivated to be able to potentially lead to mistrust in the [judicial] branch, attacks on what the branch is doing," said Jennifer Mascott, a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and then-Judge Kavanaugh and now a Catholic University law professor.

Added Dupree, "You can't have a court deliberate and perform its constitutionally assigned function if it can't be ensured of the sanctity of its deliberations, if it thinks that anything that one justice says to another colleague or any memo that they write internally is going to appear on the front page of the newspapers the next day. That's a very, very worrisome trend. It may be the new normal."

After a three-month recess, the justices met together for the first time this week to reset their docket and discuss appeals that have been filed over the summer.

Sources say the chief justice, who leads the closed-door meeting, had sent a memo to his colleagues indicating some of the controversies surrounding the court, like the leaks and ethics reform, would be privately and candidly discussed.

The Supreme Court in its new term will confront issues like gun rights and transgender care for minors, with pending appeals over the Affordable Care Act, religious freedom, immigration and abortion access.

It is a unique, fast-moving time of change and challenge at an institution used to being slow and deliberate.

"I did learn early on that when you are holding the reins of leadership, you should be careful not to tug on them too much," said Roberts in 2016. "You will find out they aren't connected to anything."