Petitions to rein in the EPA and the Bureau of Land Management should take their place on the Supreme Court’s docket.
The Los Angeles Lakers and LeBron James are reportedly negotiating a new contract that could bring the NBA superstar back for a record 24th season. Here’s the latest on the talks and what it means for L.A.'s future.
The Senate narrowly rejected a war powers resolution on Iran as President Trump touts a framework agreement with Tehran to end the monthslong conflict.
President Trump has taken further steps to dismantle the Department of Education, moving offices for special education and civil rights to other departments. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services will be moved to the Department of Health and Human Services, while the Department of Justice will take over civil rights issues, the Trump administration announced Tuesday.The moves are worrying, especially considering Trump’s campaign to dismantle the Department of Education as well as who he has appointed to HHS and the DOJ. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made worrying comments about autism, making outlandish claims and changing policies on vaccines to fit his medically inaccurate views.Kennedy’s views have also been criticized as incorporating eugenics, which should not be anywhere near special education in America. It raises fears that students with special needs could be marginalized or worse.When it comes to civil rights, the DOJ has been ground zero for the Trump administration’s attacks on “wokeness,” undermining its own Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and targeting one of America’s leading civil rights organizations, the Southern Poverty Law Center. The person in charge of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Harmeet Dhillon, is a loyal foot soldier to Trump.Now, the Department of Education will be weakened further, and students will lose valuable resources as these offices are moved into departments without education experts. Combating discrimination and increasing special education resources used to be a priority in America, but no longer.
A widely cited study claimed that “anti-transgender laws” encourage teen suicide attempts. A new review dismantles it.
An individual allegedly involved in a thwarted terrorist attack aimed at Sunday’s UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House parroted Democrat conspiracy theories about President Trump protecting child predators connected to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to federal court documents. The revelation came on Tuesday, when Fox News reported on how the FBI and […]
In Trump v. Slaughter — a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — President Donald Trump is defending his right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a former commissioner for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The case is pending, and according to Reason's Damon Root, he may have the late Justice Antonin Scalia to thank if Trump v. Slaughter goes his way."Sometime in the next two or three weeks," Root explains in the libertarian Reason, "the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case about the president's authority to fire independent federal agency heads 'at will,' rather than 'for cause,' as federal law currently requires. If President Donald Trump wins the case, as many legal observers think he probably will, a 1988 dissenting opinion by a famous conservative justice is likely to play a key supporting role."The 1988 dissent by Scalia was in the case Morrison v. Olson.In that ruling 38 years ago, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and eight other justices examined a president's ability to remove officers of the U.S. from office. Scalia was the lone dissenter, disagreeing with two fellow Ronald Reagan appointees — Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor — as well as Rehnquist and Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and William Brennan Jr."According to the Federal Trade Commission Act," Root notes, "FTC commissioners may only 'be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.' Trump, however, purported to fire Slaughter for purely political reasons, which the statute, as written, does not allow. The question now before the Supreme Court is whether that statutory requirement amounts to an unlawful restriction on executive power. A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to view the law in that unforgiving light and rule in Trump's favor."Root continues, "If the Court does so, among the legal authorities it is likely to cite is a solo dissent written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in a case called Morrison v. Olson (1988)…. At issue in Morrison v. Olson was whether the existence of the independent counsel violated the constitutional separation of powers because it placed certain executive authorities beyond the immediate reach of the chief executive."Morrison v. Olson, like Trump v. Slaughter 38 years later, is grappling with how much executive power a president enjoys under the Constitution. "Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a judicial conservative who was first appointed to SCOTUS by none other than (President Richard) Nixon, readily affirmed the independent counsel law…. Writing alone in dissent, Scalia offered a very different view of the matter," according to Root. "The Constitution placed the executive power in the hands of the president alone, Scalia argued, and 'this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power'…. If Trump does prevail in his efforts to fire Slaughter from the FTC, don't be surprised when the long shadow cast by Scalia's nearly 40-year-old dissent is visible in the Court's decision."
Steven Spielberg’s highly anticipated alien movie “Disclosure Day” hit theaters last Friday. In the weeks leading up to its premiere, a circulating theory — fueled by the government’s ongoing UFO file declassifications — suggested Spielberg collaborated with the government to prepare the public for real alien disclosure.Glenn Beck saw it on opening night, and he says it’s definitely “worth seeing.”But could it actually be predictive programming?On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn shares his raw thoughts on what “Disclosure Day” really means. Glenn isn’t ready to dismiss the theory that “Disclosure Day” is predictive programming — entertainment designed to plant ideas so that future real-world events feel familiar and less shocking.“The Department of War and the CIA have had an official entertainment liaison office for decades,” he says.“They are brought in to help shape stories, and it's not a shadowy conspiracy ... [Hollywood is] given jets and bases and technical advisers for their movies, and in exchange, they shape the stories for the government, and this is documented policy.”However, there’s another framework worth considering: George Gerbner’s cultivation theory.Gerbner’s theory argues that long-term, heavy exposure to media gradually "cultivates" or shapes people's perceptions of reality, making them believe the world is more like what they see on screen than it actually is.Glenn points out that heavy media consumption is one of the modern era’s defining characteristics, as people are “scrolling and staring and consuming media” essentially “eight hours every day.”“[Gerbner’s] research shows that heavy viewers develop mean world syndrome where everything is a danger. They overestimate the danger, crime, threats. They become more fearful, more dependent, and more open to strong-man measures,” he explains.What if “Disclosure Day” isn’t preparing us for real aliens but rather attempting to scare people into submitting to future government mandates?The most critical question, Glenn insists, is: “Who profits from the fear?”“We've been seeing a steady drum beat of disclosure that is happening. I don't know what's real and what's not,” Glenn confesses.But he does know one thing: “A government who has been denying [aliens] for decades suddenly decides to open the door?”“Why? And who profits from fear?” he asks.To hear more, watch the video above.Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Last week, the Supreme Court handed an unusual — if temporary — victory to an Alabama man on death row. As Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor, writes, this is the first time in over five years that this Court refused to “un-block an execution that a lower court had put on hold,” at least […]