Democrats are trying to revive a Carter-era redistribution tax targeting oil producers. Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna reintroduced the Big […]
The Virginia House of Delegates voted Monday to delay the effective date of a ban on carrying modern semiautomatic firearms after suffering a defeat in court. A […]
President Trump on Monday blasted gasoline retailers and the State of California over high fuel costs, demanding lower prices for Americans as oil hovers around $70 per barrel amid de-escalation with Iran. Last week, Trump announced that he had "instructed the DOJ to immediately start looking into" price gouging by big oil companies. The post “There Will Be No Gouging, Which is Totally Illegal” – Trump Calls on Gas Retailers to Drop Prices to $2.50, Demands California Cut Gas Tax After Ordering DOJ Probe appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The New York City primaries underlined divisions in the party over Gaza, with implications for the 2028 election.
A former Republican State Department official is warning that President Donald Trump's reliance on executive decrees and rule-breaking will eventually be turned against his own supporters — and that the satisfaction MAGA feels now is, at best, "a sugar high."The warning came from Kim R. Holmes, a former Assistant Secretary of State and historian, in a post amplified by conservative attorney Gregg Nunziata. Holmes argued that the norms Trump is shattering will not stay broken in his favor."Every single rule broken, law violated, and norm transgressed by exclusive presidential decree or action will now be thrown back at us from the other direction," Holmes wrote.He faulted Trump for governing through reversible directives rather than durable legislation, writing that even when the president "addresses a legitimate problem, he does so not by arranging the passage of permanent laws...but by lazily using presidential directives and 'memos' that can be reversed the minute another president enters the White House."Holmes cautioned that Trump's base may be operating under a dangerous illusion."His supporters may delude themselves into thinking that he or someone like him will rule forever," Holmes wrote, suggesting Trump "may be counting on this sentiment to stay in power, as a pathway to a new kind of authoritarian rule."But power, Holmes noted, is temporary. "He will not stay in power forever," he wrote, predicting that supporters "will then discover the cost of such complicity, when in all this edgy rule breaking is turned against them."He anticipated the standard rebuttal — that progressives were already weaponizing the rules — and dismissed it as shortsighted."It may feel good now, but it is at best a sugar high," Holmes wrote. "Before you could at least legitimately complain that the rules were being broken. No more."The post built on a thread that drew in prominent conservative voices. Holmes was responding to commentator Erick Erickson, who had simply replied "Yes" to a warning from the user Chris, who posts as @chriswithans."Do you hear that, MAGA Republicans?" Chris wrote. "What's going to stop the next Democrat president from firing half the civil service when they take power again? Imagine 300,000 federal government employees permanently 'laid off.' For good. Are you happy now. Is this what you wanted."That post, in turn, responded to former U.S. attorney and legal analyst Barb McQuade, who warned about the implications of the Slaughter case for the federal workforce."The Slaughter case, overturning precedent, returns us to a spoils system where a president can 'clean house' every four years, destroying our professional, independent civil service," McQuade wrote.The chain of reaction — spanning conservative insiders, legal experts, and Trump critics alike — underscored a growing argument that the expansion of unchecked executive power sets a precedent neither party may be able to contain once the White House changes hands.
One week after Democratic insurgent victories in New York, the focus is now moving to Colorado, where challenges in a trio of races are threatening candidates backed by the party establishment.
The Supreme Court has come down on the side of common sense when it comes to boys infiltrating girls' sports.In a decision in which all nine justices concurred at least in part, the court ruled that laws in West Virginia and Idaho could limit sports teams to biological sex without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.'The challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status ... but instead on the basis of biological sex.'"The argument that the challenged laws unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender individuals is unavailing. Under this Court’s decision in Skrmetti, the challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status, see 605 U. S., at 517, but instead on the basis of biological sex," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion released Tuesday in which six total justices concurred on the core issues."The classification at issue readily satisfies rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny."Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote separate concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that concurred in part and dissented in part.Jackson also wrote a separate opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part.In his opinion, Thomas went further and affirmed that so-called transgender identity does not affect biological reality:Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable “biological” characteristic, see ante, at 10; it is binary; and “man” and “woman,” “boy” and “girl,” are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. See A. Byrne, Are Women Adult Human Females? 177 Philosophical Studies 3783, 3786–3787 (2020). To use language to obscure reality — to show “indifference regarding the truth” — is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens “as equal[s].” This is a breaking story.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Democratic Socialists are on the charge in the leadup to the next Congress – but their current winning streak doesn't insulate the party from trouble down the line.
Democratic Socialists of America target Colorado primaries as DSA-backed Melat Kiros challenges Rep. Diana DeGette in Denver's 1st Congressional District.