• 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!

Statue of Trump and Epstein placed near U.S. Capitol

admin - Latest News - September 24, 2025
admin
32 views 7 secs 0 Comments



Statue of Trump and Epstein placed near U.S. Capitol



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Sept. 23, 2025, 6:05 PM EDTBy Daniel ArkinFour Democratic lawmakers are opening a probe into Nexstar and Sinclair, two major TV station owners that are refusing to air Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talk show amid criticism of his on-air comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.In a letter, first obtained by NBC News, the lawmakers asked the corporate heads of both companies for more information about their decisions to pre-empt airings of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and “how those decisions may relate to regulatory issues pending with the Trump administration.”“If you suspended a late-night comedian’s show in part to seek regulatory favors from the administration, you have not only assisted the administration in eroding First Amendment freedoms but also create the appearance of a possible quid-pro-quo arrangement that could implicate federal anti-corruption laws,” the lawmakers wrote.Follow live updates here.The seven-page letter was sent by Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. It is addressed to Perry A. Sook, the chairman of Nexstar Media Group, and Christopher S. Ripley, the president and chief executive of Sinclair Broadcast Group. Together, Nexstar and Sinclair account for roughly 70 ABC affiliates across the U.S.The four Democratic lawmakers do not have subpoena power because their party does not have a majority in the U.S. Senate, but they can still demand answers from business leaders and public officials on issues tied to federal law.Nexstar and Sinclair both have pending business before the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the broadcast television industry and other key media platforms. Nexstar is seeking FCC approval for a proposed $6.2 billion merger with a rival, Tegna. Sinclair is exploring merger options for its broadcast business, according to CNBC.The lawmakers outlined eight questions for the heads of Nexstar and Sinclair, including which company executives were involved in discussions about pre-empting Kimmel’s show; what actions the companies are taking to “facilitate the Trump administration’s sign-off” on their pending deals; and whether the companies spoke with the head of the FCC or other Trump administration officials about the Kimmel decisions.Nexstar joins Sinclair in keeping Jimmy Kimmel off ABC affiliate stations03:29Representatives for Nexstar and Sinclair did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Kimmel’s late-night talk show is set to return Tuesday after he was suspended for what Disney, the owner of ABC, characterized as “ill-timed and thus insensitive” remarks about the killing of Kirk, a prominent conservative activist. “The MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said during his Sept. 15 show.Kimmel’s comments set off a political firestorm. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr accused Kimmel of being part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people” and threatened to “take action” at the regulatory level against Disney. Nexstar and Sinclair said they would yank the show from their airwaves, and Disney halted production. The suspension drew backlash from Hollywood talent and lawmakers in both parties, stoking a national debate over free speech.Disney announced Monday that “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” would return Tuesday night, ending an impasse that riveted Hollywood and Washington alike. But Nexstar and Sinclair said they would continue to pre-empt the show until further notice. “We stand by that decision pending assurance that all parties are committed to fostering an environment of respectful, constructive dialogue in the markets we serve,” Nexstar said in its news release.Carr, for his part, denied that he threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcast licenses unless Disney fired Kimmel, a vocal critic of President Donald Trump who has hosted his namesake talk show since 2003. Carr, speaking at a conference Monday, insisted that Disney, “on its own,” made a “business decision” to suspend the late-night host’s show. He also accused Democratic lawmakers of “distorting what happened here” with accusations of government coercion and censorship.Warren, Wyden, Markey and Van Hollen said they request answers to their questions by Oct. 7.Daniel ArkinDaniel Arkin is a national reporter at NBC News.
NEXT
Sept. 23, 2025, 3:05 PM EDTBy Doha MadaniJimmy Kimmel broke his silence after his brief suspension from the airwaves, posting a picture to Instagram on Tuesday of a Hollywood figure who once described himself as being on President Richard Nixon’s “enemies list.”Kimmel shared a photo of himself and Norman Lear, the television producer who was best known for his progressive activism. Lear died in 2023 at age 101. The late-night host captioned the photo, which features his arm around Lear, “Missing this guy today.” “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” is set to return to ABC on Tuesday night after the network suspended the show over what it described as “ill-timed” comments from Kimmel on the murder of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. During his Sept. 15 show, Kimmel criticized some Republicans for how they were responding to Kirk’s killing.“The MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said during his monologue. Disney’s ABC said last week that it was pre-empting Kimmel’s show “indefinitely” following threats of regulatory action from Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr. Many, including a handful of celebrities, expressed outrage toward ABC for choosing to pull Kimmel’s show following Carr’s threats.After increasing public pressure and calls to boycott, Disney announced Monday that Kimmel would return to late night. In its announcement, the company did not address the concerns that Kimmel’s freedom of speech rights had been violated.Hollywood rallies behind Kimmel, while Trump and supporters cheer suspension03:08Kimmel had not spoken publicly about the suspension since it happened.The late-night host has described Lear as one of his idols. Lear developed now-beloved sitcoms such as “All in the Family” “Good Times,” “The Jeffersons” and “One Day at a Time.” His work was defined by being unafraid to tackle social issues long considered taboo. Over six decades, Lear’s work took up racism, sexism, the women’s liberation movement, antisemitism, abortion, homophobia, the Vietnam War and class conflict. Lear said his work put him on Nixon’s “enemies list” because he was angry about Lear “glorifying” homosexuality on TV, according to Smithsonian magazine. He appeared delighted to learn of Nixon’s reaction to his work after a tape leaked of the president ranting about “All in the Family.” “I thought it was delicious that in the Oval Office — I didn’t care for what he was saying, I didn’t care for that particular president in any shape, way or form — but to hear the president and his confederates talking about that show and at some length, reasoning about it and comparing it to the Greek civilization, that could not have been more interesting,” he told Talking Points Memo in 2015.In a 2016 interview with “Democracy Now!” Lear compared Nixon’s rant about his show in the leaked tapes to being “Trumpish.” He also said that he remembered his civics education as a child, which taught him that he was protected by the Founding Fathers. “But when I was a boy, I learned to love my Declaration of Independence — and I underline ‘my’ — and my Constitution and my Bill of Rights, because they were the protections Americans needed in a free society where everybody is equal under the law,” Lear said at the time.Doha MadaniDoha Madani is a senior breaking news reporter for NBC News. Pronouns: she/her.
Related Post
October 15, 2025
Oct. 15, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Dan De Luce, Gordon Lubold and Courtney KubeWASHINGTON — Members of Congress are growing concerned over a lack of information from the Trump administration about the intelligence and strategy underlying its strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean, six sources told NBC News. Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have left briefings about the strikes frustrated with the lack of information, said these people: five congressional sources and an additional source with knowledge of the matter. Some have asked for unedited video of the strikes, reflecting the kind of basic information they seek, but the administration has so far refused to provide it. At a briefing a few weeks ago, Republican lawmakers were clearly upset with the answers they received, one of the congressional sources said. “The Republicans were mad that the briefers were unable to answer questions about the legal basis for the operations,” the source said. Some members of Congress — including Republicans who broadly support the attacks and the administration generally — are also concerned about the level of precision of the intelligence used to determine targets and the possibility that an American citizen could be killed in the operations, several of the sources said. A Defense Department spokesperson said members are being fully informed, and last week most GOP senators voted to defeat a measure that would have required congressional approval before more attacks were launched.Lawmakers are also asking the administration to explain who was killed in the strikes, how they were positively identified as legitimate targets for lethal force, what intelligence indicated that they had possible links to drug trafficking gangs and what information showed that they were heading to the United States with drugs, the sources said. President Donald Trump said on social media that the U.S. military had conducted another strike against a Venezuelan boat.@realDonaldTrump via Truth SocialThey have also asked whether the administration has weighed the potential response from trafficking groups, including the possibility of retaliation inside the United States.Since Sept. 2, President Donald Trump has ordered at least five military strikes in the Caribbean on boats his administration says were moving illicit drugs from Venezuela to the United States. Officials say 27 people have been killed in the attacks, the most recent of which Trump announced Tuesday. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted short, grainy video clips of the strikes on social media. The clips include multiple edits, contributing to questions in Congress about whether the targets are definitely the drug smuggling boats the administration has said they are and about the circumstances and locations of the operations. Raw, unedited video could help reassure lawmakers about the origins of the vessels being targeted, as well as provide more context for them to better understand the circumstances under which the vessels are targeted or even where the strikes are occurring. After the first strike, Trump said the boat the United States destroyed was linked to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, but the White House has yet to provide evidence to back up that claim. Drugs were found in the water after one strike, an official from the Dominican Republic said at a news conference last month. The United States has not revealed evidence that drugs were on all the boats. Asked about the lawmakers’ request for more information and video, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said administration officials have kept Congress fully informed about the strikes and the legal authorities involved with frequent briefings.“The Department of War has given numerous briefs and notifications to Congress that have extensive details of the policy, operations, tactical intelligence, and authorities invoked,” Parnell said in an email.Parnell and the White House did not directly address why the administration so far has not provided lawmakers with access to unedited video of the attacks.A White House official told NBC News, “The Department of War is working through additional requests for information from the Hill.”The administration has provided six classified briefings to relevant congressional committees and lawmakers over the past month, Pentagon and White House officials said.Although no one on the congressional side disputes that there have been briefings by Pentagon officials, members from both parties have come away from them dissatisfied and frustrated at the vague nature of the information that was shared, the sources said. NBC News has reported that the United States has been preparing options for strikes inside Venezuela’s borders. Many lawmakers fear that extending the bombing to targets on land would pose a significant risk of civilian casualties, two of the congressional sources and the source with knowledge of the matter said. Targeting a vessel on the open seas is one thing, they believe, but striking a location on land brings more perils, including the possibility of inadvertent civilian deaths.A member of the national militia holds a Venezuelan flag at a rally in support of President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on Oct. 6 amid rising tensions with the United States.Leonardo Fernandez Viloria / Reuters fileSome members of Congress also believe the strikes are illegal; others have concerns about their legality. The administration provided a letter to Congress in which it said Trump has determined that the United States is now engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug trafficking organizations and that it views members of those groups as “armed combatants,” using the same legal rationale the government has previously used to go after Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and other terrorist groups.After the first classified briefing by Pentagon officials, which they felt was lacking, multiple lawmakers asked the administration to give access to unedited video of the strikes to members of Congress, who would view the video only behind closed doors, the sources said. Members believe the raw video could help answer some of their questions. So far, though, the administration has not agreed to the request, the sources said. During previous administrations, Pentagon and intelligence officials in some cases provided lawmakers with classified, nonpublic video or photos of specific counterterrorism operations. Although Republicans have privately voiced concerns about the lack of information and clarity about the strikes, last week all but two GOP senators joined in voting down a resolution that would have required the Trump administration to seek congressional approval before it launched more attacks.The resolution went down to defeat in a 51-48 vote. Two Republicans, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined almost all Democrats in voting in favor. (John Fetterman of Pennsylvania crossed the aisle and joined the rest of the Republicans in voting no.) Paul said that he believes the strikes have no legal foundation and that the administration needs to provide evidence to justify the lethal bombing raids. “Is it too much to ask to know the names of those we kill before we kill them, to know what evidence exists of their guilt?” Paul said in a speech on the Senate floor. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., at a committee hearing in Washington on Sept. 17.Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images fileSen. Todd Young, R-Ind., voted against the resolution but said afterward that he was still “highly concerned about the legality” of the strikes, as well as the deployment of U.S. warships and other resources to the Caribbean that could be needed to counter China in the Pacific.“The administration should adhere to the Constitution and keep the people’s representatives informed on this critical national security issue,” Young said in a statement.‘Secret list’More than 20 Democrats in Congress wrote a letter to the administration last month posing a list of questions about the recent strikes and asking for a copy of all legal assessments of the attacks by federal agencies. The administration has yet to respond to the letter, according to a spokesperson for Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., last week accused the administration of failing to inform Congress and the American people about all the groups being targeted and all the groups Trump has designated as terrorist organizations. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Slotkin asked Charles Young, the principal deputy general counsel for the Defense Department, to identify the drug cartels that are viewed as adversaries in the campaign.“How many new terrorist organizations are we currently in armed conflict with, and could you name them?” Slotkin asked. Young, who has been nominated to be the Army’s next general counsel, told Slotkin: “Senator, it may be more appropriate to discuss that with you in a closed session.”Slotkin replied that “we couldn’t get it in a closed session” held with the Defense Department’s new general counsel. “I was a CIA officer and helped with targeting. I have no problem with going after these cartels,” she added. “I have no problem designating terrorist organizations in general. But we’ve never had an instance where there’s a secret list of what I understand to be dozens of new terrorist organizations that the American public and certainly the oversight committees don’t get to know.”In justifying labeling cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, officials often cite the high death toll from fentanyl use in the United States. But Venezuela is not considered a source for the illegal fentanyl in the United States, which is mainly smuggled over land routes in small, easily concealed amounts across the Mexico-U.S. border, not by boat through the Caribbean, experts say. A claim by Colombian President Gustavo Petro last week appeared to reflect the concern U.S. lawmakers have about the precision of the strikes and the intelligence behind them. Petro wrote on social media last week that a boat struck on Oct. 3, which the United States portrayed as Venezuelan, was actually from his country and carried Colombian citizens, and he also criticized what he said was a broader political campaign against Venezuela. In a statement, a White House spokesperson dismissed what Petro said, but it was unclear whether the spokesperson was rejecting his central claim, that the boat was Colombian with Colombian citizens on it, not Venezuelan. The spokesperson did not respond to an attempt to clarify the administration’s position.“The United States looks forward to President Petro publicly retracting his baseless and reprehensible statement so that we can return to a productive dialogue on building a strong, prosperous future for the people of the United States and Colombia,” the statement read. Dan De LuceDan De Luce is a reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit. Gordon LuboldGordon Lubold is a national security reporter for NBC News.Courtney KubeCourtney Kube is a correspondent covering national security and the military for the NBC News Investigative Unit.
October 2, 2025
Here Are the Workers Not Getting Paid During the Shut Down
November 14, 2025
Nov. 14, 2025, 9:38 AM ESTBy Daryna Mayer and Yuliya TalmazanKYIV, Ukraine — As explosions boomed and smoke blanketed Ukraine’s capital early Friday, it was the same old fear for Nadiia Chakrygina. Like clockwork, she got her three children — Tymur, 13, Elina, 9, and 9-month-old Diana — out of bed and into a basement, where they waited, some asleep, some awake, for the strikes to be over.“Why do our children deserve this,” Chakrygina, 34, told NBC News in a telephone interview. “Why are they living under strikes? Why can’t they get proper sleep and go to school? There is anger about everything.”It’s a routine millions of Ukrainians have been begrudgingly following since Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his invasion almost four years ago, and the nearly nightly barrages of Ukrainian cities that have followed. A Russian drone shot down by Ukrainian air defense above Kyiv on Friday.Sergei Supinsky / AFP via Getty ImagesAs Chakrygina and her family emerged from their shelter, they learned at least four people were killed and another 29 injured in the massive attack, which authorities said had damaged residential buildings in the Ukrainian capital. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has been pushing for an end to the war, took to X shortly afterward to call it a “wicked attack.”But with peace negotiations effectively stalled and Russian troops pushing deeper into eastern Ukraine, there is little end in sight. Chakrygina, who used to work as a pension fund clerk before she had her three children, said she moved to Kyiv from the town of Vuhledar in the eastern Donetsk region shortly after the war started in February 2022. Vuhledar, which has been obliterated by years of fighting, was captured by Russian forces last October as part of Putin’s wider push to recapture the entire Donbass region, which is made up of Donetsk and the neighboring region of Luhansk. While their progress has been slow, earlier this week Russian forces appeared to be advancing on the city of Pokrovsk, a key logistics hub seen as a gateway to the broader region, which sits around 35 miles north of Vuhledar. A destroyed apartment in a residential building that was hit Friday.Oleksii Filippov / AFP via Getty ImagesBack in Kyiv, business manager Maryna Davydovska said she could feel the air “shake” around her as powerful and loud explosions interrupted the night, forcing her family to go to an underground shelter.“I feel numb inside,” Davydovska, 36, said in an interview on WhatsApp messenger after the attack. “It’s too much pain we are carrying every day, and it feels like it will not be over, never. I am not angry or fed up, I am desperate.”Russia has been pummeling Ukraine with near-daily drone and missile strikes, killing and wounding civilians. The Russian Defense Ministry said Friday that forces targeted Ukraine’s “military-industrial complex and energy infrastructure” with “high-precision long-range weapons.” It made no mention of civilian sites hit.The Kremlin has repeatedly said its only targets are linked to Kyiv’s war effort, but it has relentlessly targeted Ukraine’s energy sector in a bid to plunge the country into the cold and dark ahead of winter.“We are used to everything. The strikes come, we get scared but life continues,” Chakrygina said, reciting the motto that gets her through the relentless attacks. But while civilians simply try to survive, there was public anger this week after Ukraine’s justice minister was suspended Wednesday in an investigation into an alleged $100 million kickback scheme in the country’s energy sector. German Galushchenko was removed from office after anti-corruption authorities said they exposed a scheme which allegedly saw current and former officials, and businesspeople receive benefits and launder money through the country’s state energy company, Energoatom, authorities said.Police stand next to a residential building damaged in Friday’s strikes, Oleksii Filippov / AFP via Getty ImagesFive people have been arrested and another seven were placed under suspicion, according to a statement Tuesday from Ukraine’s National Anticorruption Bureau, the NABU, and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, SAPO.Zelenskyy said in a statement on Telegram on Wednesday that those involved “cannot remain in their positions,” adding: “This is a matter of trust in particular. If there are accusations, they must be answered.”Davydovska called the scandal “demotivating,” although she said she was encouraged that the corruption was uncovered and investigated. “We have a joke — Ukraine is the richest country: no matter how much is stolen, there is still money here,” she said. But on a more serious note, she added that Ukrainians had been fundraising for the army for the last four years, “while some bastards are doing such things.” Chakrygina meanwhile, said she was hopeful that peace can be reached. “We don’t believe anymore in Vuhledar, in our [Donetsk] region, because Vuhledar has been erased from the face of the Earth. But we want to at least live here [in Kyiv],” she said. It’s her three children that keep her going every day, she said. “They need their future. They need to live without war,” she added. Daryna Mayer reported from Kyiv. Yuliya Talmazan from London. Daryna MayerDaryna Mayer is an NBC News producer and reporter based in Kyiv, Ukraine.Yuliya TalmazanYuliya Talmazan is a reporter for NBC News Digital, based in London.
October 12, 2025
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.
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved