Mediaboss Marketing

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Liberal media pundits took issue with outlets referring to Sen. Lindsey Grahams, R-S.C., bill to ban abortions after 15 weeks by its title "Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act."

On Tuesday, Graham announced that he would be putting forth the bill to the Senate as the abortion debate continues to rage following the Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade in June.

Several Democrat politicians and progressive media pundits have attacked this legislation, but some liberal Twitter users took more issue with the reporting on the bill, claiming that "late-term" abortions, which generally refer to abortions that take place in the second and third trimester, do not exist.

"The Today Show" reporter Danielle Campoamor tweeted, "Friendly reminder: theres no such thing as a late term abortion. Reporters, news anchors and anyone else in the media its our job to report the truth, not regurgitate anti-abortion talking points and pseudo-science. If you cannot report accurately do not report at all."

Protesters shout as they join thousands marching around the Arizona Capitol after the Supreme Court decision to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision Friday, June 24, 2022, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

PRO-LIFE ACTIVIST CLASHES WITH DR. PHIL, AUDIENCE MEMBER ON ABORTION: YOU KEEP SPEAKING OVER ME

Huff Post deputy editor Emily McCombs wrote, "I am once again reminding you that late term abortion is not a medical term. It is a political construct the right uses to mislead people about the nature of abortion. Doctors and scientists avoid it for this reason. You should too!"

"Late-term abortion is not a medical term, it's a made-up term that monsters like @LindseyGrahamSC use to scare people. Don't be fooled. Do be furious. Vote these f**kers out," head of Huff Post personal Noah Michelson said.

"A late term abortion ban would ban abortion at and after 41 weeks. Just saying," abortionist and New York Times contributor Jennifer Gunter tweeted.

Republican lawmakers have enacted abortion restrictions since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. (AP Photo/Bruce Schreiner, File)

The American Independent senior political reporter Emily Singer added, "Term pregnancy is 40 weeks. There is no such thing as a late-term abortion."

The Nation correspondent and frequent MSNBC guest Elie Mystal wrote, "Please stop calling Lindsey Graham's National Abortion Ban a late term abortion ban just because that's what he calls it. He's lying about what it is. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT LIARS JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT YOU TO, media people."

LIBERAL MEDIA OUTLET SKEWERED FOR BLASTING RUBIOS MOCKERY OF PREGNANT MEN: YOU GUYS JUST FAILED BIOLOGY

Several progressive Twitter users also largely referred to the bill as a "national abortion ban," which to some could imply a complete ban, despite it being limited to only after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In addition, the bill includes several exceptions such as rape, incest and when a woman's life is in danger from a pregnancy.

The bill also includes a criminal penalty of up to five years for doctors who perform abortions after 15 weeks but explicitly bans the prosecution of women seeking abortions. Precautions must also be taken for children born alive after an abortion attempt, including having a physician trained in neonatal resuscitation on hand.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced a new bill to ban abortions after 15 weeks nationwide. ((AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File))

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Grahams bill marks the first national GOP effort to limit abortion access after several Republican leaders have imposed restrictions in their states in the wake of the fall of Roe.

Lindsay Kornick is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to lindsay.kornick@fox.com and on Twitter: @lmkornick.

Visit link:
Liberals blast media coverage of Grahams 15-week abortion ban, say no such thing as 'late-term' abortion - Fox News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas., applauded Governors Greg Abbott, R-Texas., and Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., Friday for sending migrants to liberal hotspots to show Democrats what border communities deal with on a daily basis.

Rep. Burgess joined "Fox & Friends First" to discuss how Abbott and DeSantis brought media attention to the border crisis and the hypocrisy from liberals as they speak out against the move.

"I assure you it is on the front pages of every small Texas town, every small Texas county where they're having to deal with this on an ongoing basis. And it has gotten worse month over month, and it is the worst I have ever seen," said Burgess.

MARTHA'S VINEYARD HOMELESS ADVOCATE SAYS MIGRANTS THERE WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO MOVE 'SOMEWHERE ELSE

Burgess said he pressed Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Beccera on whether Texas communities are given any notice before a group of migrants crosses over the border. As a result, Burgess did not receive answers.

"Thank Goodness Governor Abbott has had the foresight to begin to push this story onto the national stage because that's where this discussion needs to occur," Burgess said.

Burgess argued the Biden administration's open-border policy provided "business opportunities" for smugglers and cartels.

Despite the influx of drugs, including fentanyl, entering the United States, Burgess said HHS has prioritized "how to push kids through the system faster."

"We're getting kids out to people who are not their parents, not primary relatives. We're sending them out to secondary sources. And that's not the way it's supposed to be. That's not the way current law reads. But Secretary Mayorkas changed it individually."

Burgess said policies like this are encouraging trafficking and children are going missing.

"In Houston, where they've simply lost 60 kids. Who knows what happened there? But do you worry about trafficking? I do. And that's why really the administration needs to get a much better handle on this. And it starts with border security," Burgess said.

A woman, who is part of a group of immigrants that had just arrived, holds a child as they are fed outside St. Andrews Episcopal Church, Wednesday Sept. 14, 2022, in Edgartown, Massachusetts, on Martha's Vineyard. (Ray Ewing/Vineyard Gazette via AP)

Burgess argued that the amount of illegal immigration is overwhelming border states.

"You can't deal with those numbers in a rational and really humane fashion."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Biden administration will consider "litigation options" this week against Republican governors sending migrants from the border to Democratic cities, according to a report.

The Friday meeting involving White House officials along with Homeland Security, State, Justice and Defense departments will also discuss other border issues amid a record number of migrants entering the country illegally, Axios reported.

The meeting was scheduled before Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sent two charter planes full of migrants to affluent Marthas Vineland in Massachusetts on Wednesday, but after months of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey sending busloads of migrants from the border to places like New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C. Abbott also sent two buses of migrants to Vice President Kamala Harris Washington, D.C. home on Thursday.

Fox News' Brie Stimson contributed to this report

Elizabeth Heckman is a digital production assistant with Fox News.

Read more from the original source:
Texas Rep. Burgess says border crisis is 'worst' he's ever seen as migrants arrive in liberal cities - Fox News

Lets circle four days in September Saturday, Sept. 10 through Tuesday, the 13th. They will be the most crucial dates in the 2022 political calendar since March 22, the day when the Liberals and New Democrats signed their non-aggression pact to keep the minority government in power until 2025. Under the unprecedented Supply and Confidence Agreement, the NDP promised to protect the Liberals back from unwanted elections in exchange for action on selected NDP policies a commitment that the Liberals, moving at the pace of a sedated turtle, are not rushing to honour.

The NDP is not happy. Its caucus leaders are signalling impatience. They need to demonstrate to the party faithful that casting NDPs lot with the Liberals is producing otherwise unattainable benefits. So far, they have nothing tangible to display. Collapse of the agreement is the last thing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs on the eve, or in the wake, of the four days in September.

Sept. 10 is the day when Pierre Poilievre, the pit bull of Parliament Hill, will become the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and leader of Her Majestys Loyal Opposition. Poilievre is an exceptional character. He is singularly proficient at nursing the publics grievances, large and small, real and imagined, serving them up as violations of Canadians freedoms, and using them as a hammer to attempt to demolish the character and credibility of the prime minister.

Poilievre is well aware of polls reporting Trudeaus declining popularity. Unless he listens to CPC moderates and there is said to be a first time for everything he can be expected to pursue his quarry with hunters zeal until he bags it or loses it.

Sept. 11-13 are the days for the Liberal caucus summer retreat in New Brunswick. Normally an annual event, it wasnt held for the last two years because of COVID.

The retreat is generally a relaxed affair, part social and part political. The leader and his lieutenants tell their backbenchers about all the wonderful things they are doing or contemplating doing, and the MPs report what they are learning from their constituents.

If the Liberals are relaxed this year, they will be in Never Neverland, not New Brunswick. The spectre of a re-energized opposition under Poilievre and the unhappiness of the NDP partners cannot be ignored.

Four things need to happen.

First: The Liberals cannot afford to give Poilievre three days to vilify them on free media while they are hidden away at the retreat. They have to fight back. That means putting Justin Trudeau out front, not simply defending his government thats old news to the media but by being aggressive, attacking Poilievre with heavy weapons from the Liberal armoury to drum home the Grit message that Poilievre is no harmless populist who plays fast and loose with the truth but rather a dangerous demagogue with a disregard for democracy.

Second: The Liberals need to use the retreat to adopt a battle plan to protect themselves in Parliament from war against a militant right-wing opposition that has nothing to lose, that will not relent in its efforts to defeat the government, to hog-tie every bill and to grind committee work to a halt.

Third: The Prime Minister must confirm the Liberals commitment to its promises to the NDP, announce a firm time schedule, from introduction of measures in the House through the Senate to royal assent, for the items the NDP wants fast-tracked. These start with free dental care for low-income families and include retraining to prepare petroleum workers for green energy jobs.

Four: Wake up that sleepy turtle.

Continue reading here:
Opinion | Liberals headed to Never Neverland, not New Brunswick, if they relax this September - Hamilton Spectator

OTTAWA Although three weeks remain in the Conservative partys leadership race, the talk in political circles has already shifted to whats next.

Pierre Poilievres victory is being treated as a foregone conclusion by his rivals and allies alike. He has upwards of $5 million in the bank, more than 300,000 party members signed up behind his cause, and the crowds turning up at get-out-the-vote events are assuaging earlier fears that all of the new members hes recruited wouldnt turn out to vote.

So, whether its planning House of Commons strategy or hashing out who might have which jobs, Tories and Liberals are already thinking about how Poilievre will reshape the countrys politics once the leadership race concludes on Sept. 10.

Between that day and the resumption of the House of Commons, hed have nine days to pull together at least a skeleton crew to kick off the fall sitting of Parliament.

His team is nixing all public discussion of transition planning, fearful of jinxing his victory.

With 62 sitting MPs endorsing him, Poilievre would have no shortage of names to select from for his front bench team of critics, who would lead the charge on the dominant files come fall.

Meanwhile, those who chose to support leadership rival Jean Charest are already contemplating their political futures after a highly charged campaign that has seen Poilievre attack the former Quebec premier mercilessly.

As a result, Jol Godin, one of the MPs who supported Charest, is telling reporters hes not sure hell stick around, and its expected there will be others who quietly decide not to run again.

Also eyeing their next steps are the staff. The ranks in the Official Opposition Leaders office thinned considerably in recent months as many opted to jump ship early instead of potentially being marched out the door several are now working in Ontario Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Fords government.

Conservative MPs grouse in a joking way that now it is their own offices that will be left bare as eager staffers make the jump to the opposition leaders office.

Poilievres entire inner circle isnt expected to move to Ottawa. Instead, like leaders before him, his campaign team would more likely pivot to start planning for the next general election, whenever that might be.

On paper, it could be at least 2025 thats the year the clock will run out on the agreement between the minority Liberals and New Democrats that has the latter propping up the government in exchange for implementation of some key NDP priorities.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has already signalled hes willing to pull the plug sooner though, and at least one Conservative MP is publicly arguing that the next election could come as early as this fall.

Long-time Tory Michelle Rempel Garner penned an essay this week laying out her argument that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will either call an election this fall or step down as Liberal leader in two years time.

Liberals dispute the idea of a fall election, but there is no doubt tongues are wagging in their circles about how much longer Trudeau will stay on by 2025, hell have been in power as long as his predecessor, Stephen Harper.

Where they agree with Rempel Garner is that a Poilievre-led Conservative party would be a much different Official Opposition than theyve faced off against since coming to power in 2015.

In her essay, Rempel Garner called it the coming end of the war of succession thats plagued the party since Harper stepped down in 2015.

The two leaders who followed him Andrew Scheer and Erin OToole only won their jobs after multiple rounds of ballot counting, and so never had a solid mandate, she argued.

This meant that neither of them could really escape the gravity of Stephen Harpers influence within the party or the aspirations and grudges of malcontents. The result of this was that the Conservative party never truly coagulated after Harpers defeat, she wrote.

However, all signs are pointing to a decisive first or at most, second ballot Poilievre victory in September. Poilievre will have the clear mandate Scheer or OToole never really were viewed as having.

Scheer and OToole also had to grapple with people waiting in the wings to take their jobs, and who ultimately ousted them as leader, she wrote and those people are all now gone.

Any behind-the-scenes agitators that facilitated the Scheer and OToole ousters might, having vanquished all other opponents, finally be satiated with the influence and policy direction that a Poilievre-led Conservative party will offer them, she wrote.

There is a good chance that swords will be put down and everyone will take a breather.

Not the Liberals.

How theyd handle Poilievre will be on the agenda at the governments cabinet retreat in early September just before the Tories wrap up their race and their caucus retreat right after.

One logistical concern is the fact that Parliament will still be hybrid, so MPs will be able to either attend in person or log-in from home.

Having a packed opposition bench facing off against a handful of Liberals will just add more fire to Poilievres narrative that the Liberals are out of touch, and debate is now underway in Liberal circles around how to neutralize that.

But thats a small thing in the face of a bigger issue: how to best counter Poilievres argument that it is the Liberals fault that inflation is so high and the cost of living seems to grow by the month.

In less than a month, the Conservative party will choose their new leader, and if youve heard some of the facts that their leadership candidates have been flipping, youll know that we need to work together to set the record straight this BBQ season, Liberal party headquarters wrote in an email to members this week, with talking points to counter the Tory narrative including a lighthearted list of puns.

But with polls suggesting they are losing support, one Liberal told the Star this week that the party knows facing off against Poilievre is no joke.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

Sign In

Register

Read more from the original source:
Pierre Poilievres looming ascension to Tory leader has Liberals and some Conservatives wary about what comes next - Toronto Star

(Photo by Kevin Lamarque-Pool/Getty Images)

One of the loftiest decisions that a president can make is the choice of an individual to nominate to the Supreme Court. On average, a new appointment to the Supreme Court is made every 2.5 years. President Trump lucked out in this respect with three nominations. Four presidents Andrew Johnson, Harrison, Taylor, and Carter never had a justice confirmed to the Court, while the president with the most confirmed justices aside from George Washington was FDR with eight.

With the nomination and confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden had his first opportunity of making a dent on the Court. It is unlikely that Justice Brown Jackson will have a significant effect on the Court in the short term due to the Courts composition. The picks that tend to have a substantial impact are ones where there is a distinct ideological shift due to the transition. Examples of this include when Justice Barrett took Justice Ginsburgs seat on the Court and when Justice Thomas took Justice Marshalls seat. To a lesser degree, the shifts from Justice OConnor to Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy to Justice Kavanaugh had this type of impact as well.

An important question often asked during the nomination process is how well can we predict a justices future behavior when they join the Court. Surely not through the confirmation hearings. Presidents want to know a prospective justices voting behaviors to ensure they can make informed decisions about their nominees. The nominations of Justices Warren, Souter, and Stevens are examples of failures in this respect. A wider circle of litigators and interested parties also want to know what to expect with the transition of justices.

Exactly pegging a justices voting positions prior to their joining the Court can be a tricky business. This is due to the fact that judging on the Supreme Court is so unique. The most similar judicial position is as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Court of appeals judges are bound by stare decisis, however, while justices on the Supreme Court are not. Appeals court judges also decide the vast majority of cases on random assignments of three judge panels. This means they dont often decide cases with the same judges and a three judge panel is vastly different from a nine justice one where you always vote with the same judges. These differing variables make inferring positions based off a judges votes on courts of appeals to ones he or she will make on the Supreme Court a difficult enterprise.

Beyond these limitations, scholars such as those involved in theSupreme Court Database(including myself) have compiled detailed information of all Supreme Court cases. Due to the vastly more significant number of court of appeals cases and the different variables that such an analysis would require, there is not a similar dataset for these courts. The most proximate example of this is the Songer Appeals Court Databasewhich looks at random samples of court of appeals cases each year. This does not aggregate enough information to generate ideology scores for all judges based on their votes though.

Some have tried to generate ideology scores of appeals court judges on which to categorize judges positions and to predict how they will vote in the future.One waythat they have done this is by sampling a smaller set of votes. Another way is throughJudicial Common Space Scores(JCS) which are based on the judges appointing presidents and home state senators ideological positions. Athird measurelooks at the campaign finance donations of a judges clerks to gather a judges policy positions.

The second and third measures allow for vague comparisons to be made between a court of appeals judges judicial behavior and how they may vote on the Supreme Court. For the reasons mentioned above though, court of appeals judges positions do not necessarily translate well to how judges will vote if they are elevated to the Supreme Court.

Five Thirty Eightran a piece about Justice Brown Jacksons potential ideological position relative to the rest of the Court which showcased the hurdles of making any accurate predictions. The Five Thirty Eight article uses the campaign finance scores and the JCS scores to predict judges positions on the court of appeals and on the Supreme Court. In the JCS model Justice Brown Jackson comes up as the most moderate liberal justice while the campaign finance scores place the justice further to the left than any of the justices including Sotomayor who is currently the most liberal justice on the Court. This shows that while Justice Brown Jackson is not likely to make a substantial impact on the justices overall decisions, her position on the left of the Court is still quite unclear.

Justice Brown Jackson only sat on the D.C. Court of Appeals from June 2021 to June 2022, and since she was nominated to the Court in February 2022 she did not sit on any panels after that time. This left her with a very small number of panels on the D.C. Circuit and far too few to help infer her policy positions.

She was also a judge on the District Court for D.C. from 2013 to 2021. Another way to define her positions and the one that I chose to use was studying a sample of her district court decisions that were later appealed to the D.C. Circuit. We can gather a sense of Brown Jacksons decision making by observing which appeals court judges voted to affirm and to reverse her district court decisions. This too is an incomplete method, but it has several advantages over the other methods and most importantly, it is based on votes and is focused on a set of cases in which Brown Jackson participated.

I examined 33 published appeals decisions from cases where Brown Jackson was the district court judge below. Thirty-one of these were three-judge panel decisions and two were en banc decisions. The number of cases involving each appeals court judge is as follows:

While most of the cases on a district court judges slate are criminal matters, those that later become published appeals decisions come from a wider variety of matters. The issues tackled in this set of cases include the following:

The appeals panels included 11 judges appointed by Republicans and eight judges appointed by Democrats. The next graph shows the appointing presidents of each of the appeals court judges.

One way that has been used to predict votes of court of appeals judges is by looking at the party of appointing president of the appeals court judge and comparing that with the district court judges party of appointing president. If the majority of the panel is composed of judges that were appointed by presidents of the same party that appointed the district court judge, then the expectation is that they will side with the district court judges position. If the majority composition is from a different party than the district court judges party, then the expectation is that they will vote to reverse more frequently. The majority of all (not only published) appeals court decisions affirm district court judgments.

For the purpose of this exercise, votes to affirm and reverse in part were treated as reversals if at least a substantial portion of the decision was to reverse. Fifteen of the three-judge panels voted to affirm Brown Jacksons decisions and 16 panels voted to reverse.

The panel compositions based on parties of appointing presidents in cases where there are no split votes are shown below:

Surprisingly, all four decisions from panels with three judges appointed by all Democrats voted to reverse (at least in part) Brown Jacksons decisions. These cases were Crawford v. Duke(with Judges Millett, Rogers, and Pillard),Sickle v. Torres Advanced(with Judges Rogers, Srinivasan, and Millett),Pavement Coatings v. USGS(with Judges Millett, Wilkins, and Rogers), andUnited States v. Johnson (with Judges Srinivasan, Edwards, and Rogers). There were also no cases with all Republican judge panels, two en banc decisions, and four cases with split votes on the panels. One split vote was DR/R with a Republican and Democrat voting for Jacksons position and a republican voting against, one panel was D/RR with the Republicans voting against and two panels were R/DD with Democrats voting against.

Aside from the DRR non split panels the data do not show a particular bias of court of appeals Democratic nominees in favor of Jackson. This is one indication that Brown Jackson is perhaps not as liberal as President Biden had hoped or expected. When we look at the appeals court judges votes to reverse, the pattern is consistent with this more moderate formulation. The judges rates of voting to reverse Brown Jacksons district court decisions for judges on at least four of these panels are as follows:

The overall picture from these data conform more to the picture painted by the JCS Scores than to that painted by the campaign finance scores. The picture is of a liberal judge, not as liberal as Justice Sotomayor, and more likely a moderate with a similar ideological position to that of Justice Kagan. Even though we lack complete information on which to formulate accurate predictions of how future justices will vote when on the Court, this more refined way of viewing Brown Jacksons lower court record should give a more complete picture than other available methods.

Read more at Empirical SCOTUS

Adam Feldman runs the litigation consulting company Optimized Legal Solutions LLC. For more information write Adam atadam@feldmannet.com.Find him on Twitter:@AdamSFeldman.

Read more from the original source:
Justice Brown Jackson Won't Shift The Court, But Will She Shake Up The Liberals? - Above the Law