Connect with us


Recently, the right-wing North Carolina Supreme Court overturned its 2022 fraud ruling



The North Carolina Supreme Court has become much more conservative since the 2022 midterm elections. On Friday, newly minted judges used that power to overturn a months-old court decision to cancel cards that were blatantly rigged by the state’s Republican legislature.

The North Carolina Supreme Court has become much more conservative since the 2022 midterm elections. On Friday, newly minted judges used that power to overturn a months-old court decision to cancel cards that were blatantly rigged by the state’s Republican legislature.

The majority on the right covered up this decision with grandiloquent expressions, but this decision has an openly political character. The Republican legislature now knows that it can continue to work its way to a permanent majority—regardless of the will of its constituents—and that the state’s highest court will not stop it.

“Here, the Democratic-controlled court has fulfilled its sworn duty to uphold the state constitution’s guarantee of free elections fair to all voters of both parties,” wrote Liberal North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls in her scathing 70-page dissent. “That decision has now been overturned by a Republican-controlled court seeking to ensure that extreme party machinations are established in favor of the Republicans.”

The decision will also be reflected in the US Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the case in December. After that, a new conservative bench in North Carolina came to power and agreed to review the case in a shockingly biased manner, putting the role of the Supreme Court in limbo. In early March, the Court requested an additional briefing on how it should proceed.

North Carolina lawmakers based much of their initial argument on the theory of an independent state legislature, a vague scrap of an idea that the legal right world has seized on to try to help then-President Donald Trump hold on to the White House in 2020. He argues that only state legislatures—with the exception of state courts, constitutions, and governors—can control federal elections in their states, including the mapping of Congress. If the Supreme Court signs it, this theory could overturn the US election. But some still argue that it’s better to get a Supreme Court ruling on this theory now than in a lawsuit before or after the 2024 election.

Earles, joined by the only other liberal, Judge Michael Morgan, did not try to confuse Friday’s decision supporters.

“Let there be no illusions as to what motivates the decision of the majority to rewrite the precedent of this court,” she wrote. “Today’s result was preordained on November 8, 2022, when two new members of this court were elected to form a conservative majority for this court.”

“For the new majority of the court, the briefing of the parties after the rehearing did not matter,” she added. “The verbal argument held after the rehearing was irrelevant. The merits of the plaintiffs’ arguments are irrelevant. For what is at stake in this case is the majority’s own political agenda. Today, the Court shows that its own will is stronger than the votes of the North Carolina electorate.”

Read the ruling here:


The Real Reason Presidential Candidates Form Research Committees



Earlier this month, Senator Tim Scott released great campaign style video and announced that he was forming an “exploratory committee” for the president. But does that mean he’s really running?

Exploratory committees are essentially half measures for the indecisive; they will do a lot of what candidates do (raise money, hire staff, conduct surveys), but technically they are not. Study committees (also known as water test committees) are not required to report to the Federal Election Commission, but are required to follow its rules. And the minute a non-candidate announces his intention to run or takes action to qualify to vote, he legally becomes a candidate and must account for all his financial activities during the research phase.

Presidential candidates are not required to form exploratory committees, but many do. And almost all those who do so end up as official candidates. Since the modern primary era began in 1972, at least 89 people have announced the formation of a presidential water research or testing committee. Only six did not participate, the last of which then Sep. Evan Bay in the 2008 elections almost 20 years ago. So it will be a pretty big shock if Scott decides not to take any chances this year.

Almost all exploratory committees turn into real campaigns

Politicians who announced the formation of exploratory committees or review committees in the 1972-2020 presidential primaries and whether they ended up running in formal elections

Source: News

So, if 93 percent of exploratory committees turn into campaigns, why do politicians bother with this partial step? In a word: attention. By making two announcements—one for your research committee and one for your campaign—you give the media two chances to cover you. For example, according to data with closed captions from the Internet Archive TV news archivemention of Senator Elizabeth Warren (who ran for president as a Democrat in 2020) and doctor Ben Carson (who ran for the Republican nomination in 2016) on the three major cable news networks skyrocketed after they each announced their study committees another after each declared they were officially run for president. (For context, the diagram below also includes cable news mentions Scott following the announcement of its exploratory committee this year.)

But Scott didn’t have to announce an exploratory committee to get media attention twice. He could follow the example of the writer Marianne Williamson and the former governor of Arkansas. Asa Hutchinson: announce that you are running social media or TV without much fanfare or circumstancethen hold big campaign rally “formally” launching your campaign afterwards. Then Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Corey Booker another Senator Bernie Sanders all did it in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, and it also gave them two bursts of cable news coverage.

All this raises the question: what event marks the real start of the presidential campaign? Study committee announcement? Candidature announcement? Launch rally? This is an important issue for us as journalists because we need to make decisions about when to cover a candidate without letting them trick us into giving them information. too much coating. But it’s also an important question for researchers and historians who need to be accurate about previous presidential campaigns.

Let’s eliminate kickoff rallies immediately; if the candidate has already announced his intention to run, the rally is nothing more than free advertising of his candidacy. This leaves us with an exploratory committee announcement against a nomination announcement. On the one hand, we have seen that almost all statements by the Investigative Committee are merely a prelude to the inevitable. On the other hand, they are not a 100% guarantee that someone will become a full-fledged candidate.

After all, we at FiveThirtyEight crave that 100 percent certainty. (We so rarely get it!) So our policy is to not consider anyone an “official” presidential candidate until they have made an explicit intent to run. And it looks like we’re in good company: New York Times another Washington Post Scott is also not yet considered as an official candidate. Based on their past behavior, cable news networks feel the same way. Since the 2012 cycle, candidates have almost always received more cable news coverage after their candidacy announcement than after their exploratory committee announcement.

Candidates get more attention than study committees

Number of 15-second cable news episodes that mentioned presidential candidates during the week after they were announced by the exploratory committee, compared to the week after they officially announced their candidacies

candidate Elections party Exploitation Candidacy
Herman Cain 2012 R 12 275
Buddy Romer 2012 R 33 12
Newt Gingrich 2012 R 446 970
Tim Pawlenty 2012 R 155 452
Mitt Romney 2012 R 375 1390
Rick Santorum 2012 R 95 276
RonPaul 2012 R 206 374
Jim Webb 2016 D thirty 89
Lindsey Graham 2016 R 144 504
Ben Carson 2016 R 176 297
Donald Trump 2016 R 84 1229
Lincoln Chafee 2016 D 77 145
Rick Santorum 2016 R 20 386
Marianne Williamson 2020 D 0 0
Julian Castro 2020 D 22 100
Elizabeth Warren 2020 D 1.008 801
Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 D 205 283
Pete Buttigieg 2020 D 26 522
Mike Gravel 2020 D 2 4
Michael Bloomberg* 2020 D 935 1036

* Bloomberg announced his candidacy less than a week after the announcement of his exploratory committee, so his periods overlap.

CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC searches included the candidates’ full names, common nicknames, common misspellings in their names, and, where appropriate, their titles plus their last names. The extreme value for measuring coverage for any given day is midnight Eastern Standard Time.

Sources: TV news archive, news bulletins.

So, Senator Scott, if you think your exploratory committee hasn’t received enough media coverage, there’s a reason for that. If you want us to write about you, two simple words are enough: “I’m running.”

Continue Reading


Dominion V. Fox News libel trial begins this week



What does Fox say?

V letter filed by Foxthe company believed it aired allegations of voting machine rigging because they came from the incumbent and those close to him and were thus newsworthy.

“The incumbent’s attempt to challenge the election results and change the outcome of his re-election bid is newsworthy,” the document says. “Therefore, the media throughout the country and around the world widely covered and commented on the president’s allegations and trials.”

Fox claimed that “Fox News has lived up to its commitment to full disclosure and unbiased commentary,” adding that “some presenters were skeptical of the president’s claims; others looked at them hopefully; everyone recognized them as deeply informational.”

The network claims to have covered Dominion’s denials and given the company a chance to make its point.

“In short, Fox News has done exactly what the First Amendment protects: it has provided the public with access to newsmakers and critical information that would help foster an “uninhibited, active and wide open” debate about fast-moving events of unprecedented importance.” V litigation according to Fox’s lawyers.

Fox also argues that “the Dominion lawsuit is an attack on the First Amendment and the free press.”

Who is expected to take the position?

According to Associated Press, Carlson, Hannity and Murdoch are to testify. Many also believe that Pirro, Scott and former host Lou Dobbs will also take the position.

Can you watch it on TV?

No cameras will be allowed under Delaware court policy, and a judge recently denied media companies’ request to broadcast audio excerpts.

What are the possible outcomes?

If Fox loses, the company is likely to be stuck with big payouts, its stock price could suffer and its reputation damaged. Fox News claims that if it loses, the case would damage press freedom and the First Amendment.

“Free, vibrant American discourse depends on First Amendment protection for news gathering and press reporting,” a Fox Network spokesperson said in a statement. The newspaper “New York Times.

If Dominion loses, not only will it keep the media defamation bar extremely high, it could push Fox News and other networks into even more defamation in the future.

“If Fox misses one thing that it says is that there are limits to propaganda, to lies on TV… to misinforming your viewers,” said Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at New York University. CNN. “If Fox wins, it kind of says otherwise, there are no limits.”

Whatever happens in the Dominion trial, this is far from the end of Fox News’ problems. in 2021, Smartmatic, a London-based global technology company, also filed a $2.7 billion libel suit. against Fox News and Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Dobbs.

The lawsuit was filed after a series of false claims about Smartmatic voting machines and the 2020 elections were posted online. About a month ago, the New York State Supreme Court Manhattan gave the go-ahead to keep the Smartmatic business going.

Continue Reading


GOP back home submits bill to serve as ‘strong response’ to Biden’s border crisis, expert says



On Monday, Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee will unveil a border security package that will increase the number of border officers, restart construction of the border wall and provide additional technology in response to the ongoing crisis on the southern border.

The Border Security Act of 2023 will focus on border security, funding and staffing. Areas such as asylum reform and detention requirements are addressed in a separate law approved by the Judiciary Committee last week. The National Security Committee Bill complements this law.

A committee aide who spoke to reporters ahead of the bill’s introduction said it was meant to honor House Republicans’ commitment to America to keep the country safe and protect the American people.

The bill would restart construction of the border wall, which was largely halted at the start of the Biden administration after years of building work under the Trump administration. The bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to use the already allocated and overdue funds to restart construction. It will also increase Operation Stonegarden’s grants to law enforcement along land and sea borders and provide additional technological upgrades at the border, including two-way radios and license plate readers.


March 15, 2023: Rep. Mark Green interrogates Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz. (Screenshot)

Separately, it directs the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to increase its staff to at least 22,000 border guard agents from the roughly 19,000 currently serving, and will require them not to serve as processing coordinators. The Biden administration increased the number of agents at the border, but many agents were transferred to the processing of migrants deep into the United States.

The bill also aims to fight the retention of Border Patrol agents whose morale has fallen due to the devastating border crisis by providing retention bonuses to agents. It also requires the administration to release data on a monthly basis, including the number of “fugitives” at the border.

Another piece of the bill restricts use of the controversial CBP One app, which the Biden administration expanded to allow migrants to make appointments at entry points. The Biden administration said the app ensures a streamlined process at the border and encourages migrants to apply for asylum at legal ports of entry rather than entering illegally. However, Republicans have said that it has become a de facto “concierge service” for illegal immigrants.

The legislation will return usage to its original focus during the Trump administration, when it was used for commercial purposes, by removing the ability for migrants to make appointments at ports of entry.

Committee aides said the bill was drafted in close collaboration with the Judiciary Committee, and they believe it has support in the Republican conference — and with a high degree of confidence that it will pass the House.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mallorcas

DHS Secretary Alejandro Majorcas testifies at a House hearing in April 2022. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)


Numerous hawkish immigration groups have urged the Republican leadership to pass the kind of broad border and sanctuary legislation now being introduced by the committees and have come out in support of both bills. Laura Rice, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Border Security and Immigration, on Thursday praised the Judiciary Committee bill as a “bold response” to the migration crisis, highlighting its handling of asylum fraud, steps to end child smuggling and E-Check mandates .

“When the policies put forward by the House Judiciary Committee are fully merged with the House Homeland Security Committee package due next week into a single flagship bill ready for swift passage, the House of Representatives will provide the American people with a strong response to the administration’s actions. Biden. border crisis,” she said.

The committee held a series of high-profile border-related hearings with witnesses including Border Guard Chief Raul Ortiz, who said he disagreed with the decision to stop building the border wall and said the agency had no operational control. borders.

He recently marked 100 days of what he said was a “long overdue” administration oversight, including 230 briefings and meetings, 23 oversight and document request letters, more than a dozen site visits and seven hearings.


The introduction of the bill occurs before the expiration of Section 42 next month, May 11. Officials fear that the end of the order, which allowed border guards to remove hundreds of thousands of migrants at the border due to the COVID-19 pandemic, will lead to a new influx of migrants in the spring and summer months.


Republicans in the House and Senate have called for the removal of House Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mallorcas following tense hearings in several committees in recent weeks. The Biden administration has said Congress should instead focus on fixing what it calls the “broken” immigration system.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2023 Culture Belle Media.