The U.S. Coast Guard has begun a public hearing into the tragic implosion of the Titan submersible that claimed five lives during an ill-fated expedition to the Titanic wreck site in June 2023.
Daily Mail Online reported that the hearing, taking place in North Charleston, South Carolina, aims to investigate whether any criminal activity contributed to the disaster. Former OceanGate employees are scheduled to testify, providing insights into the company's operations and the submersible's history.
The hearing's first day revealed a pattern of safety concerns and equipment issues plaguing the Titan submersible in the years leading up to the tragedy. Witnesses, including OceanGate's former engineering director Tony Nissen, shed light on the company's practices and decision-making processes.
The Titan submersible reportedly experienced over 100 equipment issues in the years preceding the 2023 incident. A lightning strike during a 2018 test mission may have compromised the vessel's hull, raising significant safety concerns.
Former engineering director Tony Nissen testified that OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, who was among those who perished in the implosion, often made crucial engineering decisions despite objections. Nissen described Rush as difficult to work with and frequently focused on costs and project schedules.
Nissen also revealed that he was terminated after refusing to sign off on the damaged hull for the 2019 Titanic expedition, highlighting the tensions within the company regarding safety protocols.
The hearing uncovered that the Titan was never certified or classified by any third-party organization, a standard procedure in the industry. This lack of external review raised questions about the vessel's safety and readiness for deep-sea missions.
Nissen testified that the carbon fiber hull's manufacturer was unwilling to alter the design despite concerns raised by scale model tests showing potential implosion risks. This revelation underscores the experimental nature of the Titan's construction and the risks associated with its design.
Former OceanGate pilot David Lochridge provided a 2018 report detailing concerns about the carbon fiber hull but was subsequently fired. The company's response to these concerns, including legal action against Lochridge, further illustrates the internal conflicts over safety standards.
The hearing presented a visual recreation of the Titan's final journey, revealing that among the last words heard from the crew were "all good here." This communication, along with subsequent messages about dropping weights, provides a chilling glimpse into the submersible's final moments before losing contact.
As the hearing continues, more former OceanGate employees, including the company's former finance director and contractors, are expected to testify. Notably absent from the witness list is Wendy Rush, widow of Stockton Rush and former communications director for OceanGate.
The U.S. Coast Guard's Marine Board of Investigation, the highest level of marine casualty investigation, will submit recommendations to the Coast Guard's commandant upon conclusion of the hearing. Concurrently, the National Transportation Safety Board is conducting its own investigation into the tragedy.
The Titan submersible disaster has raised critical questions about the safety and regulation of private deep-sea exploration. The hearing's revelations of repeated safety concerns, lack of certification, and internal conflicts at OceanGate highlight the risks associated with pushing technological boundaries in extreme environments. As the investigation continues, it may lead to significant changes in the oversight and operation of submersibles used for commercial deep-sea exploration.
Sweden's right-wing government has announced a significant increase in financial incentives for migrants to voluntarily return to their home countries.
According to The Daily Wire, the proposed grant has been raised to more than $34,000 per person, a 35-fold increase from previous offerings.
The announcement was made by Johan Forssell, Sweden's new Migration Minister, who described the policy change as a "paradigm shift" in the country's approach to migration. This development follows years of high immigration rates, particularly from countries in the Middle East and Africa, which has led to growing public debate about the impact on Swedish society and public services.
Sweden has long been known for its welcoming attitude towards immigrants and refugees. However, recent years have seen a gradual shift in public opinion and political discourse surrounding immigration. The current right-wing government, led by Conservative Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, came to power two years ago with promises to address immigration-related issues.
The newly proposed repatriation grant is a clear indication of this policy shift. By offering substantial financial incentives, the government hopes to encourage voluntary returns among migrants who have struggled to integrate or find sustainable livelihoods in Sweden. This approach aims to reduce pressure on public services and address concerns about social cohesion.
Critics of the policy, particularly from liberal quarters, argue that such measures could hinder integration efforts for those migrants who wish to stay. They contend that sending a message of unwelcome could further isolate immigrant communities and exacerbate existing social divisions.
The Swedish government's decision to increase repatriation grants stems from ongoing challenges related to immigrant integration and resource allocation. Over the past three decades, Sweden has experienced significant immigration, particularly from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, and Iraq. This influx has put a strain on various public services and social welfare programs.
Proponents of the new policy argue that it is a necessary step to ensure the sustainability of Sweden's welfare system and to address issues of social cohesion. They contend that by encouraging voluntary returns, the country can better manage its resources and focus on integrating those immigrants who are most likely to successfully adapt to Swedish society.
However, the policy has sparked debate about the ethical implications of essentially paying people to leave the country. Critics argue that such measures could be seen as a form of coercion, particularly for vulnerable individuals who may feel pressured to accept the offer due to financial hardship.
Sweden's policy shift reflects a broader trend across Europe, where many countries are adopting more restrictive approaches to immigration. This rightward shift is often attributed to growing public concerns about the impact of large-scale immigration on national identity, social services, and security.
The Swedish government's decision to appoint Johan Forssell as Migration Minister is indicative of this trend. Forssell, known for his work in reducing foreign aid budgets, brings a more conservative approach to immigration policy. His appointment signals the government's commitment to implementing stricter measures on migration and integration.
Other European countries have implemented similar policies aimed at encouraging voluntary returns or deterring new arrivals. These measures range from financial incentives for repatriation to stricter border controls and more rigorous asylum procedures.
Sweden's new policy on migrant repatriation represents a significant shift in the country's approach to immigration. The government has proposed a substantial increase in financial incentives for migrants to return to their home countries, raising the grant to over $34,000 per person. This move is part of a broader policy change aimed at addressing integration challenges and resource allocation issues. The decision has sparked debate about the balance between managing immigration and maintaining Sweden's humanitarian traditions.
Two IRS investigators have filed a $20 million defamation lawsuit against Hunter Biden’s attorney, claiming malicious retaliation after they exposed Hunter Biden’s tax crimes.
IRS investigators Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler have accused Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, of defamation following their whistleblowing efforts on Hunter Biden’s alleged tax misconduct, for which he has since pleaded guilty, as the New York Post reports.
The lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., alleges that Lowell made defamatory statements about Shapley and Ziegler to the media after the two men revealed details of the investigation into Hunter Biden’s tax affairs. Specifically, the IRS agents claim that Lowell falsely accused them of illegally leaking Hunter Biden’s tax information, a charge they strongly deny.
Shapley and Ziegler contend that Lowell’s accusations were made with clear malice and aimed at damaging their reputations. According to the lawsuit, these statements caused significant harm to both investigators, who believe they acted with integrity in revealing potential conflicts of interest during the investigation of President Biden’s son.
In their court filing, the whistleblowers argue that their decision to come forward was driven by concerns about political interference in the case. They maintain that their role in the investigation was to expose such issues and to ensure that Hunter Biden’s tax case was handled without preferential treatment. The two men are seeking $20 million in damages, claiming that Lowell’s statements led to "incredible and malicious harm" to their personal and professional reputations.
This legal battle comes after a highly publicized breakdown in the plea deal between Hunter Biden and Delaware U.S. attorney David Weiss, a deal that collapsed last year. Shapley and Ziegler’s decision to air concerns about the handling of the investigation is believed to have been a major factor in the collapse of that agreement.
In the lawsuit, Shapley and Ziegler insist they never disclosed any tax return information that wasn’t already public knowledge. They describe themselves as whistleblowers who acted "with honor and integrity" by exposing what they believed were serious issues affecting the integrity of the investigation.
The lawsuit portrays the two IRS investigators as trying to correct what they saw as improper political motivations and preferential treatment influencing the investigation into Hunter Biden’s finances.
The whistleblowers strongly deny any wrongdoing, asserting that they followed all legal protocols in disclosing information related to the case. In fact, they believe Lowell’s accusations were not only false but also intended to discredit their work in the eyes of the public.
The lawsuit points to the significant damage done to Shapley and Ziegler’s reputations as a result of Lowell’s statements, alleging that the attorney’s actions were an attempt to shield Hunter Biden from further scrutiny.
Shapley and Ziegler argue that their reputations have been tarnished by what they describe as an orchestrated effort to undermine their credibility as whistleblowers. They have called Lowell’s comments both false and defamatory. The legal filing in D.C. emphasizes that both men acted ethically and with a sense of duty in bringing their concerns forward, and that they never crossed any legal lines in doing so.
As the case proceeds, it could have significant implications for the wider investigation into Hunter Biden, who last week pleaded guilty to felony tax charges. The plea comes after months of intense scrutiny over his financial dealings and allegations of preferential treatment in the legal process.
Both Shapley and Ziegler continue to assert that their actions were justified, and they are seeking a judgment in their favor to clear their names.
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, now an independent, has made a notable move by endorsing former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan -- a Republican -- for the U.S. Senate.
Manchin, who recently transitioned his party affiliation from Democrat to independent, praised Hogan's independence and suitability for the Senate, as Just the News reports.
Manchin publicly threw his support behind Hogan during an event held Thursday in western Maryland, just across the border from his own home state of West Virginia. This endorsement could signal a shift in the dynamics of the Maryland Senate race, as Manchin emphasized the need for leaders who can rise above party politics.
In his endorsement, Manchin was clear that his decision was not about party affiliation but rather about Hogan’s character and capabilities. “Forget about being a Democrat or Republican. Larry Hogan is just the right person with the right attitude for the job,” he stated. Manchin added that Hogan, if elected, would not be controlled by any political party or ideology.
Hogan, a Republican, served as governor of Maryland for two terms, notably in a state that leans heavily Democratic. His leadership during his tenure is often cited as pragmatic, and his ability to work across party lines earned him respect from various quarters. His Senate campaign, now bolstered by Manchin's support, faces a challenging contest against Democratic County Executive Angela Alsobrooks of Prince George's County. The seat for which both are vying is currently held by retiring Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin, adding further weight to the race as Democrats seek to retain the seat and Republicans eye it as a potential flip.
Manchin's endorsement of Hogan comes as he has decided not to seek reelection in 2024. This decision has fueled speculation about Manchin’s political future, with some wondering if his shift to independence and focus on bipartisan cooperation signals ambitions beyond West Virginia politics.
For now, Manchin remains vocal in supporting candidates who, like him, challenge partisan lines. His backing of Hogan, a moderate Republican, underscores this commitment. The senator's remarks stressed Hogan’s independence from strict party control, a characteristic that Manchin believes is crucial in today’s polarized political climate.
Hogan’s campaign, in response to Manchin's endorsement, expressed gratitude. A statement released to The Hill highlighted the former governor's appreciation for the friendship between the two men, noting that Hogan is running to bring more “independent leaders” into the Senate. The campaign emphasized that Hogan, like Manchin, prioritizes country over party.
Despite Hogan’s bipartisan appeal, his campaign faces steep odds in a state that has traditionally leaned Democrat in Senate races. His opponent, Angela Alsobrooks, is a rising star in the Democratic Party and has strong backing from within the state.
Still, Hogan’s record as a two-term governor who led Maryland through both economic and public health challenges may resonate with voters seeking experience and pragmatic leadership. Hogan’s focus on issues such as fiscal responsibility and infrastructure during his tenure may help him attract independent and moderate voters across the state. Manchin’s endorsement adds an additional dimension to the race, particularly as Hogan positions himself as a candidate above the fray of partisan bickering. This message could appeal to a growing number of voters frustrated with the state of national politics.
The timing and significance of Manchin’s endorsement cannot be overlooked. With his own future uncertain, Manchin has increasingly embraced an image as a centrist unbound by the rigid structures of party politics. Hogan’s candidacy may offer a path for voters looking for a similar approach at the national level.
The partnership between the two men also highlights a broader movement among some leaders to reject ideological purity in favor of pragmatic solutions to complex issues. For Hogan, Manchin’s endorsement is not just a boost in his Senate race but also a validation of his brand of leadership, which he hopes will appeal to Maryland voters once again.
As the 2024 Senate race heats up, the impact of Manchin’s support for Hogan remains to be seen. However, the endorsement could help Hogan gain traction in a race that will be closely watched by both parties as a potential swing seat.
White House National Security Council communications adviser John Kirby found himself at the center of controversy after accidentally sending an email to Fox News that appeared dismissive of veterans' concerns about the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal.
As reported by The Western Journal, the incident occurred on September 11, 2024, the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The situation unfolded when Fox News sent an email inquiry to the White House, including quotes from four veterans who had voiced strong criticisms of the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal.
Kirby, intending to respond only to White House staffers on the National Security Council, inadvertently hit "reply all," including Fox News in his response.
Kirby's email, which was not meant for public consumption, stated: "Obviously no use in responding. A 'handful' of vets indeed and all of one stripe."
This message, seemingly dismissive of the veterans' concerns, quickly sparked outrage among veterans and their supporters. The four veterans quoted in the original Fox News inquiry were Republican Rep. Cory Mills of Florida, Mark Geist, Stuart Scheller, and Chad Robichaux, all of whom had offered scathing criticisms of the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Upon realizing his mistake, Kirby sent a follow-up email to Fox News, stating, "Clearly, I didn't realize you were on the chain." However, the damage had already been done, with the initial email revealing what many perceived as the administration's true stance on veterans' concerns.
The email incident comes amid ongoing scrutiny of the Biden administration's handling of the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal. Earlier in the week, Republican Rep. Mike McCaul of Texas, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, released a report criticizing the administration both for the withdrawal itself and for subsequent attempts to deflect responsibility.
In response to Kirby's accidental email, Rep. McCaul expressed his disapproval, stating that the Biden-Harris administration has consistently disregarded veterans, service members, and Gold Star families over their botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. This statement, shared on social media by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority, further fueled the controversy surrounding Kirby's email.
The veterans quoted in the original Fox News inquiry had strong reactions to the administration's handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and Kirby's recent press conference performance.
Mark Geist, a Marine veteran and member of the security team that fought in the 2012 Battle of Benghazi, criticized Kirby's press conference, pointing out what he perceived as a one-sided presentation of facts and falsehoods.
Stuart Scheller, a former Marine who was court-martialed for publicly criticizing U.S. military leadership over the Afghanistan withdrawal, offered a scathing assessment of Kirby and military leadership. Scheller stated:
I am proud that I identified the mistakes and poor planning in real time. It still pains me that it cost me my career. John Kirby, a former Navy admiral, represents the morally weak military officer class willing to parrot narratives for individual advancement. These politicians in uniform demonstrate, time and time again, that they are terrified of honest assessments of failure.
Chad Robichaux, another veteran quoted in the Fox News inquiry, emphasized the strategic implications of the withdrawal. He highlighted the abandonment of Bagram Air Base and the consequences for Afghan women and girls, as well as the sensitive equipment left behind.
The accidental email from White House adviser John Kirby has reignited the debate surrounding the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan. The incident has brought renewed attention to the concerns of veterans and their families and the Biden administration's handling of the withdrawal and its aftermath. As criticism mounts, the White House faces increasing pressure to address these concerns and provide a more comprehensive response to the issues raised by veterans and military families.
Conservative commentator Candace Owens has been temporarily suspended from YouTube following an interview she conducted with rapper Kanye West, now known as Ye.
According to a report from The New York Post, Owens claims that "Zionists" are responsible for flagging the content and causing her channel's suspension.
The suspension, which will last for a week, came after YouTube determined that the interview violated its hate speech policies. Owens took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to announce the suspension and express her frustration with the decision, stating that her channel had been demonetized and that she would be unable to produce content for the duration of the suspension.
YouTube confirmed the suspension of Owens' channel, citing repeated violations of its policies, including Advertiser-Friendly Guidelines and Community Guidelines. The company's spokesperson, Jack Malon, provided a statement explaining the action taken against Owens' channel.
The video in question, titled "Kanye West (Ye) x Candace Owens | Candace Ep 42," was removed from Owens' YouTube channel for violating hate speech policies. YouTube specifically noted that the content contained claims about Jewish people controlling the media, which falls under their prohibition of conspiratorial claims targeting protected groups.
Owens shared a screenshot of the communication she received from YouTube, which detailed the reasons for the video's removal and the subsequent channel suspension. The platform's message emphasized that content containing claims about individuals or groups being evil, corrupt, or malicious based on their protected group status is not allowed.
In response to the suspension, Owens took to X to voice her concerns and accusations. She claimed that the interview with Ye, which took place on August 7, showed the rapper as "calm and filled with love — speaking about the world coming together to defeat evil."
Owens suggested that the timing of her channel's suspension was connected to a recent debate she had with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on Piers Morgan's television show. She expressed her belief that she is being targeted, stating, "The world knows why I am being targeted, and frankly, I have never felt more confident that I am the right person for this to happen."
The commentator also noted that prior to this incident, she had not received any strikes on her YouTube creator account. However, she reported receiving three content hits in quick succession, along with the notification of full demonetization.
This is not the first time Owens has been involved in controversies related to antisemitism. The Anti-Defamation League has previously condemned her as a political commentator who has embraced and promoted antisemitic tropes. Earlier this year, Owens left her position at Daily Wire following a public disagreement with co-founder Ben Shapiro over issues related to Israel and antisemitism.
Ye, the other party involved in the controversial interview, has also faced consequences for making antisemitic remarks. Several of his social media accounts have been suspended due to comments he made, including repeating tropes about Jewish control of the entertainment industry and blaming a Jewish doctor for inadequate medical treatment.
YouTube's actions against Owens' channel include not only the week-long suspension but also her removal from the YouTube Partner Program, which allows content creators to monetize their videos. The platform stated that creators are permitted to reapply for access after a 90-day period.
The suspension of Candace Owens' YouTube channel highlights the ongoing debate surrounding content moderation and free speech on social media platforms. YouTube's decision to remove the interview with Ye and suspend Owens' account was based on violations of hate speech policies. Owens has attributed the suspension to "Zionist" intervention, while YouTube maintains that the action was taken due to repeated policy violations. The incident underscores the challenges faced by platforms in balancing free expression with the prevention of harmful content.
HANOI, Vietnam - Typhoon Yagi, the most powerful storm to hit Vietnam in three decades, has left a trail of destruction across the country's northern regions, claiming at least 127 lives and leaving 54 people missing.
The super typhoon, which made landfall on Saturday, continues to wreak havoc with heavy rainfall, landslides, and flooding, according to a report by the BBC.
The storm's impact has been catastrophic, with 1.5 million people left without power and thousands stranded on rooftops in some northern provinces. Authorities have issued flood and landslide warnings for 401 communes across 18 northern provinces, highlighting the widespread nature of the disaster.
Typhoon Yagi brought winds of nearly 150km/h (92 mph) to northern Vietnam, causing extensive damage to infrastructure. Bridges have collapsed, roofs have been torn off buildings, and factories have sustained significant damage.
The severity of the storm was evident in the destruction of the Phong Chau bridge in Phu Tho province, which gave way and plunged several vehicles into the water below.
One-storey homes in parts of Thai Nguyen and Yen Bai provinces were almost completely submerged, forcing residents to seek refuge on their roofs. The flooding and landslides have not only caused fatalities but have also injured at least 752 people, according to officials at the Ministry of Agriculture.
The storm's impact extends beyond Vietnam, with 24 people reported dead across southern China and the Philippines before it made landfall in Vietnam.
Although Typhoon Yagi has now weakened into a tropical depression, authorities warn that it will continue to create disruption as it moves westwards. The persistent heavy rainfall poses a significant risk of further flooding and landslides in the affected regions.
Phan Thi Tuyet, a 50-year-old resident living close to the river, described the unprecedented nature of the flooding:
I have lost everything, all gone. I had to come to higher ground to save our lives. We could not bring any of the furniture with us. Everything is under water now.
Her account underscores the severe impact on local communities and the urgent need for relief efforts.
Meteorologists have pointed out that as global temperatures rise, typhoons have the potential to bring higher wind speeds and more intense rainfall. While the influence of climate change on individual storms is complex, the increasing severity of such weather events has raised concerns about future impacts on vulnerable coastal regions.
The devastation caused by Typhoon Yagi serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of more powerful storms in the future. As Vietnam begins to assess the full extent of the damage and initiates recovery efforts, the international community watches closely, recognizing the need for global cooperation in addressing the challenges posed by extreme weather events.
Typhoon Yagi has proven to be Vietnam's most destructive storm in 30 years, causing widespread devastation across the northern provinces. With at least 127 deaths, 54 people missing, and 1.5 million without power, the impact on local communities has been severe. As the country faces ongoing threats from flooding and landslides, the focus now shifts to recovery efforts and long-term strategies for mitigating the impact of future storms.
Second gentleman Doug Emhoff recently shared an intriguing anecdote about his encounter with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz at the Democratic National Convention.
According to Conservative Brief, Emhoff's description of their on-stage embrace has sparked curiosity and commentary.
During an appearance on the "Pod Save America" podcast, Emhoff recounted the moment he and Walz met on stage. The second gentleman described their greeting as a "big bro bear hug," which apparently caught the attention of his friends and family members.
Emhoff elaborated on the interaction, explaining that the intensity of the hug surprised many who know him personally. He shared that he received numerous text messages from friends and family members expressing their astonishment at the warmth of his greeting with Walz.
The podcast host, Jon Lovett, probed further into the nature of the hug, asking if Emhoff had given Walz a pat on the back to "preserve your heteronormativity." In response, Emhoff described the embrace as a "full-on" hug, emphasizing the unexpected closeness of their interaction.
Emhoff stated:
We get up there and we just do this big bro bear hug, and I cannot tell you how many texts I got from my actual friends and actual family members, like, 'You never hug me like that. What's going on? You literally [just] met this guy.'
While the discussion about the hug has garnered attention, it comes amid a series of controversies surrounding Governor Walz since his selection as Vice President Kamala Harris's running mate. These controversies primarily center on Walz's military service record and claims he has made about it.
Reports indicate that Walz served in the Minnesota Army National Guard for 24 years but did not see combat, contrary to previous statements he had made. Additionally, he has faced criticism for choosing to retire rather than deploy to Iraq with his unit in the mid-2000s, with some labeling this decision as cowardly.
Further complicating matters, it has come to light that several members of Walz's family are supporters of former President Donald Trump. This includes one of Walz's brothers, who reportedly made social media posts indicating his opposition to his brother's political ideology.
The revelation about Walz's family members supporting Trump has added another layer of complexity to his role as Harris's running mate. Investigative journalist Laura Loomer shared screenshots purportedly showing Walz's brother, Jeff, expressing his disagreement with Tim's political stance.
In one of the reported messages, Jeff Walz claimed he hadn't spoken to his brother in eight years and was completely opposed to his ideology. He also hinted at having potentially damaging stories about Tim, though he expressed hesitation about sharing them publicly.
These family dynamics have raised questions about potential challenges Walz may face in his campaign role, particularly in appealing to voters who may have similar ideological divisions within their own families.
The story of Doug Emhoff's unusual hug with Tim Walz at the Democratic National Convention has unexpectedly highlighted broader issues surrounding Walz's candidacy. From controversies about his military service to family members supporting his political opponents, Walz faces scrutiny on multiple fronts. As the campaign progresses, these issues may continue to shape public perception of Harris's choice for a running mate.
State supreme courts in key battleground states could play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the November 5 presidential election.
According to a report from The Daily Signal, the political leanings of these high courts may impact how election laws are interpreted and enforced in closely contested states.
Several battleground states, including Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina, have enacted election reforms since 2020.
These reforms encompass enhanced voter ID requirements and prohibitions on private funding for election administration. However, the effectiveness of these laws may ultimately depend on how state supreme courts choose to interpret and apply them.
The political makeup of state supreme courts varies across battleground states. Democrats currently hold majorities in the high courts of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
In contrast, Republican justices maintain control in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. Nevada's Supreme Court is evenly split between the two parties.
Recent elections have shifted the balance of power in some state courts. In 2023, Wisconsin's supreme court flipped from a Republican to a Democratic majority. This change resulted in the reversal of previous decisions, including one regarding the legality of ballot drop boxes. Conversely, North Carolina's supreme court transitioned from a Democratic to a Republican majority following the 2022 elections.
The composition of state supreme courts could significantly influence the resolution of election-related disputes. Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, expressed concern about the politicization of some state courts:
Unfortunately some state supreme courts have become just as political as some of the idealogues that have been confirmed to federal judgeships. If it's a close election, I have no doubt we will be inundated with litigation.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, noted that the situation in battleground states has become more challenging for election integrity advocates. He stated:
In most of the battleground states, state supreme courts have gotten worse. Also, some of the executives in those states—the governors, attorneys general, secretaries of state—may not defend existing election laws.
State supreme court rulings have already impacted election procedures in some battleground states. In Pennsylvania, the state supreme court issued a controversial decision in 2020 allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if they arrived up to three days after Election Day, despite state law requiring ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day.
More recently, a Pennsylvania state appeals court ruled that mail-in ballots must be counted even if a voter writes the wrong date on the return envelope. This decision could have implications for future elections in the state.
The composition of state supreme courts plays a critical role in shaping election laws and procedures. Recent shifts in court majorities, particularly in Wisconsin and North Carolina, may lead to significant changes in how election disputes are resolved.
As the November election approaches, the decisions made by these courts could have far-reaching consequences for the electoral process and outcomes in key battleground states.
Republican vice-presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance has left the door open to the possibility of reintroducing family separations if he and former president Donald Trump win the 2024 election.
Vance’s refusal to rule out the controversial policy has brought the issue of family separations back into the political spotlight as immigration remains a key focus of the Trump campaign, as NBC News reports.
On Friday, Vance compared family separations resulting from immigration policies to those that happen when criminals are arrested for violent crimes. “Every time that somebody’s arrested for a crime, that’s family separation,” he said. Vance defended the practice by arguing that enforcing the law sometimes leads to these unfortunate situations, but it is necessary to maintain order at the border.
Trump has similarly defended the family separation policy in past remarks. During a 2023 town hall, he acknowledged that the policy was harsh but said it was effective in deterring illegal immigration. “When you have that policy, people don’t come,” Trump stated.
In a recent interview, Trump emphasized plans for mass deportations, indicating that family separations might still be part of his strategy. While he acknowledged the difficulties the policy creates for families, he expressed a focus on ensuring the deportation of those he described as criminals. “Provisions will be made, but we have to get the criminals out,” he said.
The zero-tolerance policy, which led to the separation of over 5,000 families in 2018, was widely condemned by both domestic and international groups. Many families affected by the policy have not been reunified, with a recent Department of Homeland Security report indicating that 1,360 children are still separated from their families.
Homeland Security officials are continuing efforts to reunite children with their families years after the policy was ended. These efforts have been slow, in part due to the lack of adequate records kept by the Trump administration regarding the families affected by the separations. The impact of these separations continues to reverberate, with many children still suffering the emotional and psychological effects, according to opponents.
Advocacy groups have been working to raise awareness of the issue, launching social media campaigns to highlight the stories of those who were separated. One teen named Billy shared his experience of being separated from his father and left without information about his family for 30 days. His hope, he said, is that no one else will have to go through what he did.
Another teen, who remains unnamed, described being moved to New York while maintaining limited contact with his family before being reunited. These personal stories have fueled a renewed push among some to end family separations permanently.
Vice President Kamala Harris has voiced strong opposition to the possibility of reinstating the family separation policy. Harris, who has consistently opposed what she says are punitive immigration measures, is planning to reintroduce a bipartisan border security bill aimed at addressing the border crisis without separating families. She described the previous policy as both inhumane and ineffective in providing a long-term solution to border security.
The debate over immigration continues to be a divisive issue in American politics. While the Trump campaign has focused on cracking down on illegal immigration, critics argue that policies like family separation have lasting consequences for the children and families involved. These effects, they say, are difficult to justify in a system that often lacks transparency and accountability.
For now, Vance's comments have sparked a renewed discussion about what border security will look like under a possible second Trump administration. With immigration remaining a hot-button issue, the potential for returning to harsh policies like family separation is likely to remain a central focus in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
As the 2024 election approaches, Vance and Trump are continuing to promote their vision for border security, while the Biden administration and immigration advocates work to address what Democrats say is the damage done by the family separation policy of 2018.