Latest news with #Californian
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Court lets Trump keep National Guard troops in LA
An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
Perth Now
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Court lets Trump keep National Guard troops in LA
An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
Politico
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
Robert Garcia is a young Democrat with an old-style approach to moving up the House ladder
Rep. Robert Garcia wants to usher in a new era for Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. But don't ask the 47-year-old Californian if he's seeking 'generational change.' Garcia has instead fashioned his candidacy for his party's top leadership post on the panel around his experience as a big-city mayor and contributions on the Oversight panel, sidestepping the age and seniority questions that have roiled the Democratic Party. That careful approach — calibrated to appeal widely inside a House Democratic Caucus whose members are both eager to promote fresh faces and wary of sticking fingers in the eyes of party elders — has allowed Garcia, only in his second term, to emerge as the prohibitive favorite in the closely watched internal contest to replace the late Rep. Gerry Connolly. Garcia has emerged as a middle-ground choice ahead of next week's caucus election for Oversight ranking member that is putting two older lawmakers — Reps. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, 70, and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, 76 — against two younger Democrats: Garcia and 44-year-old Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas. His careful pitch was on display in a recent interview, when he sought to thread a needle between a Democratic base demanding an aggressive confrontation with President Donald Trump and the more delicate sensibilities of fellow House Democrats, whose votes he is courting. 'The seniority system in Congress is not going to go away,' Garcia said, playing down the notion that the race is a proxy battle in a larger war over the future of the Democratic Party. 'There's an opportunity here to expand who's at that table, and I bring a different kind of experience. I may not have the most time served in Congress, but I certainly would put my experience up against anybody's.' His approach was no doubt informed by the last election for Democratic leadership of the Oversight panel, where Connolly was elected at age 74 last year over 35-year-old progressive stalwart Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Connolly's sudden illness and death from esophageal cancer in May only served to rekindle the quiet but urgent conversation about whether Democrats need to promote younger leaders. Crockett has been more outspoken in presenting herself as the face of that younger, more confrontational generation. She's built a reputation as a partisan brawler in viral committee-room exchanges and cable-TV appearances. She has raised eyebrows inside the caucus, for instance, by openly discussing pursuing a Trump impeachment should Democrats retake the majority next year. 'For me, it starts with: How do we motivate the base? I think that I am the singular candidate that can really motivate and excite the base,' she told reporters last week leaving a closed-door candidate meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus. Committee leadership contests, however, tend to center on inside-the-building glad-handing than appeals to voters at large, and that is the campaign Garcia has undertaken. After backing Ocasio-Cortez for the Oversight job last Congress, Garcia has taken pains to avoid the pitfalls she faced. He has personally met with all but a handful of the 214 sitting House Democrats, according to a person granted anonymity to describe his strategy. In the interview, the former mayor of Long Beach cast himself less as an anti-Trump attack dog and more as a consensus-builder. He shied away from talk of impeaching Trump, calling it 'premature' without buy-in from other Democrats, and emphasized that the committee would do more than bulldog the Trump administration under a Democratic majority. That has been welcome to members who have been put off by some of Crockett's comments, including her willingness to entertain impeachment. 'You can't get out ahead of your skis if you're weighing something as serious as this, that requires real buy-in from battleground members and safe-seat members,' said one battleground Democrat who was granted anonymity to react candidly. There are signs the more prudent approach is paying off. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has already endorsed Garcia, the only Latino member running for the job, while other powerful groups including the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Progressive Caucus and New Democrat Coalition appear unlikely to endorse. He's also expected to receive strong support from the 43-member delegation of California Democrats — a historically formidable bloc — and he's earned plaudits from colleagues who appreciate the millions of dollars he's raised for the party and candidates as they gear up for an expensive fight to retake the House. 'I really value the people who pay their dues early and on time and who give to other people,' said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a DCCC national finance co-chair who is supporting Garcia. Garcia isn't entirely playing the inside game by any means. He has occasionally sought to bait his Republican colleagues on the Oversight panel and at times has tested what kind of rhetoric crosses the line. At a hearing of an Oversight subcommittee set up to work alongside Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency initiative, Garcia announced he would display a 'dick pic.' He proceeded to unveil a headshot of Musk, after reminding colleagues how Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene — the well-known conservative provocateur who chairs the subpanel — had shown nude photos of presidential son Hunter Biden at a previous committee meeting. Garcia is also among a handful of Democrats — alongside California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver and California Sen. Alex Padilla — who have found themselves in federal law enforcement crosshairs under Trump: In February, a prosecutor appointed by Trump threatened to investigate him after he openly suggested that the public wants Democrats to 'bring actual weapons to this bar fight' for democracy. Garcia denied making any actual threat and said he would not be intimidated. 'I'm not afraid of Elon Musk, the richest man on the planet, or Donald Trump, or other folks that are trying to cause harm,' he said in the interview — a sentiment that could appeal to Democrats, like Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont, who want younger, more aggressive leaders to step up. 'We as a caucus need to have structures in place to allow young talent to be cultivated whether it is members who have only been here a few years,' said Balint. 'This is what our voters want, so let's do something about it.'
Gulf Today
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
The great Gretas
Palestine's tiny strip coastal strip, Gaza, has become a global cause over the past 17 years thanks, in part, to two women called 'Greta.' Californian activist Greta Berlin is a cofounder of the Free Gaza Movement which in 2008 breached Israel's maritime blockade of Gaza by sailing small boats from Cyprus into the strip's fishermen's harbour. Born in Michigan and educated in Indiana and Illinois, Berlin, 84, was introduced to the Palestinian cause by her Palestinian-US husband who was a refugee from the town of Safad seized by Israel during its 1948 war of establishment. She became active in Palestinian advocacy after Israel's 1967 occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. She and her husband launched a non-profit charity, Pal Aid International, to send medicine and aid to the Palestinians. In response, she said his tax records were audited by the US Internal Revenue Service, they were questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and warned that their two children could be harmed by a pro-Israel organisation. Her second husband was Jewish and anti-Zionist. In 1977, while temporarily abstaining from the Palestinian cause, she established a successful firm for coaching engineers and scientists on how to present their work to conferences around the world. In 2003, Berlin joined the International Solidarity Movement (ISM and travelled to the West Bank to taken part in its peaceful protests against the Israeli occupation. The Free Gaza Movement – established in 2006 – made five successful voyages to Gaza in 2008 but since December that year Israel has blocked all maritime missions to reach the strip. The most violent incident took place in 2010 when Israeli commandos landed by helicopter on the deck of the Istanbul ferry Mavi Marmara and killed nine activists. The Free Gaza banner was taken up in June by high-profile Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg and 11 others on the two-masted sailboat Madleen. On the 9th, the boat was commandeered by Israeli commandoes, Thunberg and her colleagues were arrested, taken to Israel's Ashdod port and expelled to their home countries. At 22 years of age, two generations younger than Greta Berlin, Thunberg began to shine as a campaigner In 2018.. Then 15 , she skipped school to demand strong global action against climate change. She vowed to stay away from school until Sweden complied with the terms of the 2016 Paris climate agreement. Students elsewhere around the world followed Thunberg by staging protest boycotts at their schools every Friday. As momentum built, she addressed the 2018 UN Climate Change Conference as well as the 2019 Climate Change Summit in New York where Thunberg accused world leaders of inaction over the growing climate crisis. After graduating from secondary school in 2023, she intensified her involvement in the climate change movement and expanded recruitment by aggressive posting on social media, the chief means of communication used by youngsters of her generation. She also widened her horizons by leading her support to the causes of Palestine, Ukraine, Armenia and Western Sahara. After Hamas seized control of Gaza from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority In 2007, Israel waged war on the strip In 2008-2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021. These attacks involved deadly and destructive bombings and shelling from which Gaza and Gazans never recovered. Israel controlled everything which entered the strip and limited building material. On Oct.7, 2023, Hamas fighters struck southern Israel, killing 1,200 and abducing 250, according to Israel. It responded with an offensive, two ceasefires and periods when aid could flow. Israel has failed to win the war and to map a route to end it. As the Palestinian death toll mounted to 55,000, Israel has lost global public opinion. Ireland, Spain, and Norway recognised the state of Palestine in May 2024. Other Western governments could follow suit. Thunberg described as 'horrific' Hamas' attack on Israel but added that 'the world needs to speak up and call for an immediate ceasefire, justice and freedom for Palestinians and all civilians affected.' In an article published in The Guardian, Thunberg, and other climate activists in her 'Fridays for the Future' movement, made the connection between the climate and Palestinian causes. They said, 'We won't stop speaking out about Gaza's suffering – there is no climate justice without human rights.' Unlike Berlin, Thunberg has attracted widespread publicity and awards. She was named in Time magazine's 100 most influential people and Forbes' list of the world's 100 most powerful women in 2019 and nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Between 2008 and 2025 – and particularly over the past two years – a great deal has changed on the Palestine advocacy front. While attempting to suppress negative publicity over its policies in the occupied West Bank and dominated Gaza, Israel has not escaped castigation and condemnation. Among its sharpest critics has been B'Tselem, the Israeli rights organisation which labelled Israel's system of West Bank governance as 'apartheid,' which is illegal under international law. This label has been picked up by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch which had been wary of using the term until B'Tselem applied it. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice found Israel responsible for apartheid, war crimes, and crimes against humanity including plausible 'genocide.' Israel's Gaza's war, siege and blockade of Gaza led the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and ex-Defence Minister Yoav Gallant as well as Hamas leaders who were assassinated by Israel. Israel has not escaped accountability in global public opinion and among some Western allied governments although the US has remained loyal. It is much safer these days to be critical of Israel than when Greta Berlin and her sailors began their voyages to Gaza. Photos: AFP
Irish Daily Mirror
18 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Irish Daily Mirror
'Churlish' Rory McIlroy next golf star to get book treatment from Alan Shipnuk
Phil Mickelson's biographer Alan Shipnuck is writing a book about Rory highly entertaining 'LIV and Let Die' chronicled the rise of the rebel golf tour, while his Mickelson tome 'Phil' lifted the lid on the divisive six-times major winner's career. The Californian author is fascinated with the life and times of the sport's newest Grand Slam winner and his book on McIlroy is due on the shelves in March 2026. "I've spent the last year thinking about Rory McIlroy because he's going to be my next book, and I'm probably 60% done," said the famed American writer. "I have many thoughts about Rory. It's been fascinating to watch this existential crisis he's going through since the Masters and everyone has a theory." Shipnuck revealed to the Indo Sport podcast that he had tried to involve McIlroy in the process but the 35-year-old didn't want to be interviewed specifically for the book. "It's going to be fun to read because I'm having fun writing it, that's always my test," he said. "As a writer you have to be your hardest critic but I've had a lot of fun writing it. He's had a big colourful life and has touched a lot of people along the way. "I said this to Rory, that the last two books I did were big and controversial but I'd like this to be a bit more fun and celebratory because I think there's a lightness to his being. I'm not getting sucked into the recency bias, I'm looking at the whole scale of his career and there's been a lot of joy there. It's going to be an intimate portrait. "We actually had a conversation in the parking lot in Oakmont on Sunday that was really fascinating. I've got to save it for the book but a lot of things were revealed, I'll say that, and it told me so much about Rory. It was very helpful for the book. "A huge part of the Rory brand is the down to earth or human superstar - and a lot of us hope he doesn't lose that because then he loses some of his appeal." After winning at Augusta for the first time in April, thus completing the fabled Grand Slam after a 14-year wait, McIlroy refused to talk to the media during the next major tournament - the PGA Championship at Quail Hollow. He did a press conference ahead of the US Open at Oakmont last week but didn't talk again until Saturday, when he was uncharacteristically short with his answers and seemed fed up, although he perked up after his final round 67 as he looked forward to The Open's return to Portrush next month. "I think there's a few things going on and he talked about it, it's just the let down of chasing this dream," said Shipnuck. "But when Phil won the Masters in 2004 to break through after about a dozen years of being the best player with a major, and all the questions about him, that was as cathartic a win as Rory's was. "And Phil just kept going, he had his best year that year and came back and won majors the next year and the year after - you don't have to have a huge let down."Rory's an emotional player, just like Phil was, and I think he's just out of emotion. He just looks so flat on and off the golf course. This churlish version of Rory, is this the real Rory and for 18 years it's been this incredible facade and he was so widely admired and so classy and everyone admired him? "We thought that was the real Rory, but was that all pretend? It makes your head spin thinking about how much he's changed in such a short period of time." Shipnuck can't wait to see how McIlroy reacts to his Portrush return after the drama of his missed cut there in 2019. "I think Portrush is going to be fascinating, and he alluded to this as he was leaving Oakmont," he said. "Like, if he can't summon any energy or emotion to play The Open at Portrush, the course where he shot 61 when he was 16 and that really began his legend, and after what happened last time around when he made eight on the first hole and that incredible Friday when the entire island of Ireland was cheering him on to try to make the cut and the tears, if he goes back there and he just doesn't look like he's into it, then you really have to question what is this last act of his career going to look like. "Clearly it would have been better for Rory if the Masters was on in September and he could have just taken six months off. "I can't believe he's playing this week (at the Travelers) in Connecticut, why is he doing this to himself? Why is he putting himself through it? It's incredible. He just looks so miserable on the golf course and obviously it's affecting his play. "Portrush is just going to be fascinating theatre and if he can dig deep and find something if doesn't, I'm definitely concerned for what this means going forward." Shipnuck claimed that the emotional reaction to McIlroy's Masters triumph was less about the golf played than the appreciation of the Holywood man as a person, and how he has carried the burden of trying to complete the slam. "He had worn this burden and had let us into his heart and soul. That's why the Masters resonated so much," he stressed. "It's the way Rory has let us in that has made people so invested in his accomplishments - and his failures. "So it's been interesting to read on social media how people have quickly said, 'I'm kind of over this guy'. Eighteen years of goodwill, a lot of it has been incinerated in two months."He can get it back, of course, but there's been this sense of let down, it's almost taken away from some of the Masters win. The feelings we all had in April, they've been diminished and now there's these weird questions and weird energy. "It's totally self-induced, it just feels like it's not as much fun as it was. Rory made it fun to be a golf fan and it's less fun right now, and it's not good for anyone."
