• Police seek suspects in deadly birthday party shooting
  • Lawmakers launch inquires into U.S. boat strike
  • Nov. 29, 2025, 10:07 PM EST / Updated Nov. 30, 2025,…
  • Mark Kelly says troops ‘can tell’ what orders…

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Israel celebrates ceasefire deal ahead of Trump visit

admin - Latest News - October 12, 2025
admin
25 views 20 secs 0 Comments



President Trump departed for the Middle East ahead of the release of 20 living hostages held in Gaza. NBC News’ chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, reports from Tel Aviv on the Israeli reaction to the ceasefire deal.



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Oct. 12, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Lawrence HurleyWASHINGTON — The way Louisiana’s Republican leaders put it, the pervasive racial discrimination in elections that led to the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is all in the past.That is why they are now urging the Supreme Court, in a case being argued on Wednesday, to bar states from using any consideration of race when drawing legislative districts, gutting a key plank of the law that was designed to ensure Black voters would have a chance of electing their preferred candidates.Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told NBC News that the Voting Rights Act was designed to address blatantly discriminatory policies and practices that prevented Black people and other minorities from voting decades ago.“I think the question now is, have we gotten to a point where those obstacles really don’t exist anymore?” she said. “I don’t think they exist in Louisiana,” she added.At issue is a congressional district map that Louisiana grudgingly redrew last year after being sued under the Voting Rights Act to ensure that there were two majority-Black districts. The original map only had one in a state where a third of the population is Black, according to the U.S. census.The state’s new legal argument, which may appeal to a conservative-majority Supreme Court, is that drawing a map to ensure majority-Black districts violates the Constitution’s 14th and 15th Amendments, which were both enacted after the Civil War to ensure former slaves had equal rights under the law, including the right to vote.Supreme Court appears skeptical of LGBTQ conversion therapy bans04:02Conservatives say those amendments bar any consideration of race at any time, and the Supreme Court has previously embraced this “colorblind” interpretation of the Constitution.Civil rights activists say that approach makes a mockery of both the post-Civil War amendments and the Voting Rights Act, not to mention their experience on the ground in Louisiana.Press Robinson, who is one of the plaintiffs who challenged Louisiana’s original congressional map, said he had to sue in 1974 just so he could take his place as an elected official on the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board.“Has Louisiana really changed? I don’t see it,” he told reporters on a recent call.The issue reaches the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, just two years after it surprisingly rejected a similar bid to weaken the Voting Rights Act in another redistricting case.The court, however, has struck blows against the law in other rulings in 2013 and 2021.In the 2023 case, the court rejected a Republican-drawn congressional map in Alabama on the grounds that it discriminated against Black voters, leading to a new map being drawn that included two majority-Black districts.The vote was 5-4, with two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joining the court’s three liberals in the majority. Four other conservatives dissented.In Wednesday’s oral argument, Kavanaugh will be a focus of attention, in part because of what he said in his separate concurring opinion in the Alabama case.Although Kavanaugh voted with the majority, he expressed some sympathy for the argument that even if race could at one point be considered as a factor in ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act, it no longer can be.But, he added, “Alabama did not raise that temporal argument in this Court, and I therefore would not consider it at this time.”Now, piggybacking on Kavanaugh’s opinion, Louisiana’s lawyers eagerly embrace the argument Alabama did not make.Among other things, Louisiana points to the court’s 2023 ruling that ended the consideration of race in college admissions, which was issued just three weeks after the Alabama voting rights ruling.Chris Kieser, a lawyer at the right-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation, which supports Louisiana in the case, said in an interview that the upshot of a ruling in the state’s favor is that there could be no obligation to ever intentionally draw majority-Black districts.“Districts should not be drawn based on the expected race of the — whoever is going to be the member of Congress representing it,” he said.That could lead to a decline in the number of legislators at the national and state level who are Black or Latino.In that scenario, minority voters would still be able to bring separate racial gerrymandering claims under the Constitution if there is obvious racial discrimination, Kieser argued, although such cases are difficult to win.Depending on what the court does, the provision of the Voting Rights Act in question, known as Section 2, could survive in limited form.A ruling that leads to a reduction in majority-Black and other minority districts would have a partisan impact that could favor Republicans, as Black voters historically favor Democrats. If the court rules quickly, there is even a chance that new maps could be drawn ahead of the hotly contested 2026 midterm elections.The case has a convoluted history, arising from litigation over the earlier map drawn by the state Legislature after the 2020 census that included one Black-majority district out of the state’s six districts.The state drew the current map in order to comply with that ruling, but was then sued by a group of self-identified “non-African American” voters who argued that in seeking to comply with the Voting Rights Act, the state had violated the Constitution.The Supreme Court originally heard the current case earlier this year on a narrower set of legal issues but, in an unusual move, asked in June for the parties to reargue it. Over the summer, the court then raised the stakes by asking the lawyers to focus on the constitutional issue.As a result of that complicated background, the various briefs filed in the case — including one submitted by the Trump administration in support of Louisiana — make a number of different legal arguments.That makes it difficult to know ahead of Wednesday’s oral argument what the justices will focus on, said Sophia Lin Lakin, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union who is part of the legal team defending the latest Louisiana map.“It is so strange. Normally, we would always understand the question we are trying to answer,” she said.Lin Lakin does not think the case should be used as the vehicle for a “full-on assault” on the Voting Rights Act.But, she conceded, “there is some risk the way that’s being presented that the court may be interested in that bigger question.”Lawrence HurleyLawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News.
NEXT
Palestinians crowd onto aid trucks moving through Gaza
Related Post
October 8, 2025
Oct. 7, 2025, 7:31 PM EDTBy Henry J. Gomez, Matt Dixon and Jonathan AllenAs President Donald Trump clashes with Democratic governors over his push to deploy federalized National Guard troops to their cities, several former Republican governors are raising concerns about strong-arm tactics and constitutional crises — while also noting that the president has wide latitude to deploy the guard.The three former governors, who have long histories of criticizing Trump, also expressed a sense of resignation, saying they believe he will charge ahead unless the courts rein him in.“This is infuriating,” former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, who left the Republican Party in 2022 after years of opposing Trump and endorsing his opponents, said in an interview. “It is stoking resentment and fanning the flames. But as a governor there is nothing you can do to really stop the president from federalizing the guard.” Christine Todd Whitman said governors don’t have much power to stop the president from federalizing the National Guard.Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images fileFormer Ohio Gov. John Kasich expressed concern with the communication between the Trump administration and state and local officials.“I would say: ‘Here are my problems. What can you do to help me? Work with me. Don’t just shove stuff down my throat,’” said Kasich, a Republican who ran against Trump in the 2016 GOP presidential primaries and has since been a prominent anti-Trump voice in the party. While these former governors are critics, their perspectives as former chief executives of their states are instructive when active Republicans dealing with the White House and its political objectives on a daily basis are less inclined to publicly scrutinize Trump.Sitting GOP governors were less eager to weigh in on the matter, which could escalate if Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, a step he said he would consider if resistance from mayors, governors and courts makes it “necessary.” Roughly a dozen GOP governors, through their spokespeople, either declined or have not yet responded to requests for comment. “Uninformed criticisms from irrelevant former politicians shouldn’t be given the time of day,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in an emailed statement. “President Trump is lawfully taking action to protect federal officers and assets amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness that Democrat leaders, like [Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and California Gov. Gavin Newsom] have refused to quell. Why aren’t these washed up nobodies concerned with Democrat inaction to address violent crime and riots?” The political fallout is falling largely along partisan lines. The White House has cast Trump’s desire to send troops into Democratic-run cities and states as an effort to curb crime and protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and facilities that administration officials say are being targeted by rioters. Trump most recently has called for deploying federalized guard members to Chicago and Portland, Oregon, drawing pushback and lawsuits from the Democratic governors in those states.A Trump ally, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, is on record embracing the administration’s efforts, writing Sunday on X that he had “fully authorized” Trump to deploy 400 Texas National Guard members to other states. And Trump’s push to mobilize the National Guard and other federal law enforcement agencies in Memphis, Tennessee, has met with support there from Republican Gov. Bill Lee.“You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let [the] Texas Guard do it,” Abbott wrote in his social media post. “No Guard can match the training, skill, and expertise of the Texas National Guard.”Peter Finocchio, a spokesperson for Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, did not specifically address the recent developments in Oregon and Illinois but described the governor’s administration as supportive of Trump’s goals. Finocchio noted the Virginia National Guard’s mobilization last month of about 40 soldiers and airmen to “provide administrative and logistics support to ICE at locations across the Commonwealth.” The mission, Finocchio added, is expected to continue through Nov. 15. At a news conference Monday, Pritzker suggested that Trump was trying to sow unrest so he can invoke the Insurrection Act. The measure — which allows the president to mobilize the U.S. military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities under certain circumstances — was last used during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.“The Trump administration is following a playbook: Cause chaos, create fear and confusion, make it seem like peaceful protesters are a mob by firing gas pellets and tear gas canisters at them,” Pritzker said. Pritzker also threatened this week to withdraw from the National Governors Association if the nonpartisan group does not take a stand against Trump’s National Guard moves.Illinois sued Monday to block the Trump administration from deploying troops to Chicago. A judge declined to immediately block the administration’s move and instead scheduled a hearing for Thursday. Oregon AG: Trump shouldn’t deploy troops to cities unless under ‘extreme circumstances’02:44Earlier, a federal judge in Oregon had blocked the Trump administration from deploying federalized National Guard members from California or other states to Portland’s streets. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, had also blocked the administration from deploying Oregon National Guard troops in Portland.“I think it’s a real constitutional dilemma that is unprecedented and it will have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court,” said former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who briefly challenged Trump for last year’s Republican presidential nomination.“It’s difficult for the courts to step in and say, ‘We’re going to override the executive branch,’” added Hutchinson, a former U.S. attorney who stressed that he was offering more analysis than personal opinion.Hutchinson noted that he approved the deployment of Arkansas National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to protect federal assets in late January 2021, after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and before the inauguration. He also noted that in 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to enforce integration at Little Rock Central High School over the objections of then-Gov. Orval Faubus, who had mobilized the state national guard to stop Black students from entering the school.“He was enforcing federal law as interpreted by the courts,” Hutchinson said of Eisenhower. “There’s a lot of latitude given to the president.”Whitman, who also was President George W. Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator, suggested that governors could try to wrestle the bully pulpit away from Trump.“There is going to be crime in cities and small towns,” she said. “Unfortunately, it happens when humans get together, but that’s vastly different than cities burning down. I remember the ’60s when the cities were burning. That is not happening. We have mostly peaceful protests outside ICE offices. … If you are a governor, go walk the streets and take the press. There are periods where you will have drug users and homeless, and you need to be up front about that. You have to show what is and is not true, use visuals.”White House denies Trump aims to ‘take over’ cities with the military01:18Kasich, who said he was upset about a recent aggressive ICE operation involving a helicopter at a Chicago apartment complex, urged more pragmatic discussions about crime and immigration. Kasich marveled at the success that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, has had in courting the president on initiatives important to her state. Whitmer, like Pritzker and California’s Newsom, another Democrat opposed to Trump’s deployments, is seen as a potential White House contender in 2028.“Everybody’s running for president, but I can’t blame it all on them, either,” Kasich said. “There’s not much communication coming the other way,” from the Trump administration to the governors. Whitman was blunter when assessing the partisan politics, asserting that Trump is “absolutely” targeting Democratic states.“And what I want to say to Republicans who voted for him in those states,” Whitman added, “is, ‘How is that working out for you? Are you happy?’”Henry J. GomezHenry J. Gomez is a senior national political reporter for NBC NewsMatt DixonMatt Dixon is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News, based in Florida.Jonathan AllenJonathan Allen is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News. Zoë Richards contributed.
November 11, 2025
Nov. 11, 2025, 1:31 PM ESTBy Sahil KapurWASHINGTON — Senate Republicans say they’re open to extending a pot of Affordable Care Act funds that will expire at the end of the year — but only if Democrats acquiesce to stricter abortion restrictions on insurance plans.The demand presents a significant hurdle to reaching a bipartisan deal to extend ACA funding designed to avoid major premium hikes next year for more than 20 million Americans, as Democrats are adamant that existing abortion guardrails under Obamacare are sufficient.If the funds are not extended by the end of the year, some people insured under Obamacare could see their bills rise by thousands of dollars per month, raising concerns that millions will choose to go uninsured.Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said there will be a negotiation about an extension after the government reopens. He said one condition will be stricter rules pertaining to the Hyde amendment, which bars federal funding from being used for abortion.Senate Democrats only got a ‘pink promise’ on health care subsidies, says House Democrat08:00To satisfy Democratic demands to comply with the Hyde amendment when the first law passed in 2010, Obamacare does not allow federal funds to cover abortions. Some states allow people insured under Obamacare to access abortion coverage using state or other funding. Republicans want to change that.“That’s what we’re going to negotiate,” Thune told reporters before the Senate passed the bill to end the government shutdown. “A one-year extension along the lines of what [Democrats] are suggesting, and without Hyde protections — there’s just not even, doesn’t even get close.”Thune’s demand for more stringent abortion limits on Obamacare money is backed by colleagues, including Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.C., an outspoken proponent of extending the ACA funds, as well as Sens. Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Mike Lee, R-Utah.Rounds warned that “you won’t get any” Republican votes to extend the money without more stringent abortion limitations.“That’s the message that we shared with a lot of our Democratic colleagues is you can’t do it under your existing framework, and you’re never going to get any Republican votes. Because we believe strongly taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions,” he said. “They have a different point of view, but it’s pretty clear that Republicans are solid on that particular issue.”But Democrats say there’s no way they’ll agree to that.Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., responded with a flat “no” when asked if there’s any way Democrats agree to stricter abortion limitations in order to extend the ACA funds.“It’s a nonstarter,” Shaheen told NBC News, pointing to existing guardrails on abortion funding built into the ACA. “It’s not an issue. We already dealt with that issue.”Other Democrats share her opposition to changing those rules.Behind the push is a pressure campaign by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, an influential group fighting to ban abortion in the U.S., to condition Republican support for ACA funding on tougher abortion restrictions.“Since Democrat offers to pass a ‘clean’ extension of these ACA subsidies would extend funding of elective abortion coverage through Obamacare, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America strongly opposes and will score against any such offers — even for one year,” SBA President Marjorie Dannenfelser told senators in a letter dated Nov. 7 and shared with NBC News. “A vote for this extension is a vote for abortion coverage. Votes will be scored, and double-weighted, in each member’s profile on SBA Pro-Life America’s National Pro-Life Scorecard.”Katie Keith, a Georgetown Law professor and founding director of its Center for Health Policy and the Law, said existing law bans any federal funds from flowing to abortion care through ACA plans, including the premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments, consistent with the Hyde amendment.States have the option to create separate revenue streams where enrollees can pay a surcharge to gain abortion coverage through their plans. 25 states ban abortion coverage through ACA marketplaces entirely. The rest are split between requiring it through additional state funding or deferring to insurers.Still, even for states that allow ACA plans to cover abortion, “there are strict segregation requirements,” Keith said. “Since the law was enacted, no federal funds flow toward abortion care.”She said the same rule applies to Medicaid funding.“What critics of the current policy are arguing is they want Hyde plus-plus. This goes far beyond what Hyde requires,” she added. “It’s not about federal funds flowing toward the care, it’s about federal funds flowing toward coverage, even if it’s financed separately. … They want to knock out abortion coverage fully.”And if the SBA proposal becomes law, it would create a serious conflict with the dozen blue states that use their own funds to permit abortion coverage through the ACA marketplaces.“It could knock out federal subsidies for coverage altogether in those states if those funds cannot flow,” said Keith, who worked a stint in the Biden administration before returning to Georgetown.Daines, who sits on the Finance Committee that oversees health policy, said additional Hyde protections have “got to be in there, absolutely” — in any ACA deal.“We’ve got the language for it, the Hyde language,” he said. “Hyde has been a longstanding principle here of not allowing the federal taxpayers to be used for abortion.”Shaheen, a moderate Democrat who is not seeking re-election next year, is the author of a permanent ACA funding extension. She also helped craft the deal to reopen the government. She said she’s open to other reforms to the enhanced ACA tax credits, such as income-based limits, but going beyond existing abortion limitations is a red line.Other Democrats take a similar view.“I don’t think you’re going to get Democratic votes talking about abortion,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “But there are conversations you can have about the structure of the subsidies once you get into a negotiation. I’ve heard their concerns about income caps and no-premium plans.”Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said the GOP’s abortion demand seems like a smokescreen to disguise the party’s unwillingness to continue that money, which was first passed during the Covid pandemic in 2021 and extended the following year. The subsidies limit premiums to 8.5% of an enrollee’s income.“At that point, they’re just unserious about extending the ACA [funds],” he said. “Once they get into restrictions on abortion, everyone knows what that means. It means that they would like to say they’re for extending ACA, but that they don’t have the votes to do it right now.”Schatz indicated that President Donald Trump, who softened his position on abortion during the 2024 campaign and said it should be left up to states, can steer his party to a viable solution.“This is solved in 10 seconds if Donald Trump wants it solved,” Schatz said.Sahil KapurSahil Kapur is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.Frank Thorp V and Scott Wong contributed.
October 8, 2025
Controller shortages cause delays at airports including Nashville and Chicago
November 5, 2025
Nov. 4, 2025, 8:36 PM EST / Updated Nov. 4, 2025, 9:07 PM ESTBy Jane C. TimmPennsylvania voters approved the retention of three state Supreme Court justices, NBC News projects, preserving Democrats’ 5-2 majority on the battleground state’s high court.Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht all survived an up-or-down vote to keep their seats on the bench. Dougherty and Wecht each won another 10-year term, while Donohue will serve until 2027, when she’ll reach the mandatory retirement age of 75 for justices.Pennsylvania judges and justices must stand for retention every 10 years, when voters can vote “yes” or “no” to keep them on the bench. Very few Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices have lost their jobs this way, as retention elections are typically low-profile affairs. But with Democrats’ majority at stake in one of the country’s premier swing states ahead of the 2026 and 2028 elections, this year’s races drew outsize money and attention on both sides. Democrats and their allies spent aggressively in the final stretch of the race, pouring more than $13 million into TV ads since October 1st, compared to the $2.8 million spent on the Republican side. In one TV ad, the trio of judges appeared together to tell voters “we protected access to abortion. And your right to vote. Even when the powerful came after it.” Prominent Democrats backed the incumbent justices, who appeared on the ballot without any party designation. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who faces re-election next year and is viewed as a potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender, appeared in an ad on the justices’ behalf. And former President Barack Obama posted on social media urging Pennsylvanians to vote “yes” on retention.President Donald Trump also weighed in at the last minute, urging Pennsylvanians to “Vote ‘NO, NO, NO’ on Liberal Justices Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht” in a Truth Social post on Sunday night. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has decided several big cases in recent years, particularly related to elections. The Democratic-controlled court struck down a GOP-drawn congressional map in 2018 and upheld a mail voting law four years later. Last year, Democratic justices overturned a precedent upholding Medicaid’s ban on covering abortions.If all three justices had lost, Pennsylvania’s high court would have been deadlocked 2-2 through the end of 2027, threatening the high court’s ability to decide major cases and set legal precedents, which require agreement from four justices.“It would be disastrous,” Wecht warned of such an outcome in an interview with NBC News ahead of the election. “Precedent is the whole reason for our court. We’re not just deciding Smith versus Jones, we’re deciding a question of law that applies for now and in the future throughout Pennsylvania for everybody.”Jane C. TimmJane C. Timm is a senior reporter for NBC News.
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved