#U.S. Representative Summer Lee

[mariacallous]

The first person to head the Environmental Protection Agency, which was created by President Richard Nixon, in late 1970, was an up-and-coming Republican politician named William Ruckelshaus. Ruckelshaus, known to his friends as Ruck, came from Indiana, where, during a single term in the state’s House of Representatives, he had managed to get elected majority leader. On being chosen to lead the E.P.A., he moved quickly to establish the new agency’s credibility. Just a week into his tenure, he warned the cities of Cleveland, Detroit, and Atlanta that they could be sued for polluting their own waterways, and over the next few months he took action against several major corporations, including U.S. Steel. In an interview with Time a year into the job, Ruckelshaus described his strategy as focussing on the “violators with the greatest visibility in order to get the message across.” He likened the task of getting the agency organized while at the same time pursuing polluters to “trying to run a hundred-yard dash while undergoing an appendectomy.”

Since Ruckelshaus, the E.P.A. has had, depending on how you count, fifteen or sixteen more chiefs. Several of them have been, to put it politely, clunkers. Ronald Reagan’s first pick for the post, Anne Gorsuch (Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother), implemented deep budget cuts, tanked staff morale, and ended up getting cited for contempt of Congress. (To clean up her mess, Reagan called Ruckelshaus back; hence the kink in the count.) Donald Trump’s first E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, produced an even bigger—or, at least, more bizarre—public-relations debacle. He was investigated for, among other things, charging the agency for first-class flights, travelling with a security detail to Disneyland, and installing a soundproof “privacy booth” in his office at a cost to taxpayers of more than forty thousand dollars. When he resigned, in the summer of 2018, Carlos Curbelo, then a Republican congressman from Florida, called Pruitt’s tenure “an embarrassment.”

Among this not so august company, the E.P.A.’s current administrator, Lee Zeldin, still stands out. In the two months since he was confirmed, Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from Long Island, has announced his intention to roll back dozens of environmental rules and to shrink his agency’s spending by two-thirds. Reportedly, he wants to eliminate the E.P.A.’s scientific-research arm, which employs more than a thousand people. In a two-minute video released earlier this month, Zeldin, wearing a green striped tie, seemed to go so far as to renounce the agency’s foundational purpose. The E.P.A., he said, would work to “lower the cost of living,” by making it cheaper to buy a car, heat a home, and run a business. Nowhere, the Times noted, “did he refer to protecting the environment or public health.” Zeldin’s assault on the E.P.A. is so broad that it could affect everything from arsenic pollution to zebra-mussel control. But the administrator has trained his heaviest ammunition on efforts to limit climate change.

The same day that Zeldin released his video, he published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he boasted of “driving a dagger through the heart” of climate regulation. To carry out this bloody deed, the E.P.A. is planning to rescind a set of Biden-era rules aimed at curbing CO2 emissions from power plants, unravel another set of rules aimed at curbing emissions from cars and trucks, and revise the way that the government assesses the damages of climate change. (This last move involves the so-called social cost of carbon.) Most gruesomely of all, the E.P.A. wants to revisit what’s known as the “endangerment finding.”

The finding, issued by the E.P.A. back in 2009, labelled CO2 and other greenhouse gases a threat to the public’s health and welfare, and this, in turn, became the basis of the agency’s efforts to regulate them. The finding relied on scores of peer-reviewed studies and on voluminous reports by groups such as the National Research Council. Since then, the United States has experienced one climate-related calamity after another—including, most recently, the Los Angeles fires—and the evidence that increasing CO2 levels are dangerous has only become more overwhelming. “There is no possible world in which greenhouse gases are not a threat to public health,” is how Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at Brown University, put it to the Associated Press.

With the help of the E.P.A., the Trump Administration is doing everything it can to make emissions grow again. It is bestowing favors on the fossil-fuel industry, by, for example, opening up more land in Alaska for oil drilling. It is also kneecapping the industry’s competitors: the President, in an executive order issued on his first day in office, announced that he would halt leases for offshore wind development. The other day, on social media, he said that he wanted the country to burn more coal, the most carbon-intensive fuel.

Undoing regulations of any sort—lawfully, at any rate—is an arduous and time-consuming process. The first Trump Administration went about the effort so sloppily that, more often than not, it lost in court. The same could be the case with “driving a dagger through the heart” of climate regulation; ultimately, the victim may survive. But the E.P.A. could squander years on the endeavor. The task of limiting climate change, meanwhile, could not be more urgent. Last week, the World Meteorological Organization released its annual “state of the global climate” report for 2024. It noted that signs of human-induced warming have “reached new heights,” with consequences that will be “irreversible over hundreds if not thousands of years.”

One person who seems to have foreseen this disaster is Ruckelshaus, who died in 2019. The E.P.A.’s first administrator was probably better known for his subsequent role as Deputy Attorney General. Ruckelshaus resigned from that post on October 20, 1973, when Nixon tried to get him to fire the Watergate special prosecutor. (The events that led to his resignation became known as the Saturday Night Massacre.)

In the summer of 2016, Ruckelshaus grew so alarmed at what he was hearing from then candidate Trump that, together with another former Republican E.P.A. leader, William K. Reilly, he endorsed Hillary Clinton. “That Trump would call climate change a hoax—the singular health and environmental threat to the world today—flies in the face of overwhelming international science,” the two men wrote in a statement. Speaking to Greenwire shortly before the election, Ruckelshaus predicted that, if Trump won, he would appoint someone to lead the E.P.A. “who didn’t believe in it and would try to dismantle the agency.” He added, “I think Trump is scary.” ♦

[spicyseal]

18 Representatives out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators.

That's how many U.S. Congresspeople support a ceasefire in occupied Palestine. That's how few of our leaders want peace. 18 Representatives and 0 Senators. Not even Bernie Sanders, the most progressive Senator, who campaigned for President on stopping endless wars, supports a ceasefire. Likelihood is, all of your elected representatives support Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people.

It is abhorrent, and yet not surprising, that the leaders of the United States have still not learned from this country's genocidal history. In fact, the people of the United States support a ceasefire even as our elected representatives do not:

A Data for Progress national poll conducted from October 18-19 found that 66 percent of voters in the U.S. support a ceasefire and de-escalation of violence in Gaza. Specifically, 80 percent of Democratic voters support a ceasefire, 57 percent of Independent or third party voters support a ceasefire, and 56 percent of Republican voters support a ceasefire. Americans support a ceasefire.

Ask yourself, why aren't our representatives following the will of the people who voted for them?

The only Representatives who support a ceasefire are:

Cori Bush

Jonathan Jackson

Jamaal Bowman

André Carson

Jesús "Chuy" García

Summer Lee

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Ilhan Omar

Ayanna Pressley

Delia Ramirez

Rashida Tlaib

Nydia Velázquez

Bonnie Watson Coleman

Gregorio Casar

Pramila Jayapal

Barbara Lee

Alma Adams

Maxwell Frost

Those Representatives are the ones who actually care about the lives of innocent Palestinians and who are actually listening to their voters. If your Representative is not on this list, take that into account when the 2024 primaries and general election come around. Your Senators are all not on this list, so take that into account as well. "Vote blue no matter who" and attitudes like that don't make your representatives work for you, because they know they have your votes anyway.

If you want your representatives to fight for the Palestinian people's freedom, then you must push them to. Tell them to support Palestine, and if they won't, then elect people who will. The vocal support for Palestine on social media is important, but voting accordingly would do even more to push the United States to end its support of Israel. At the end of the day, the United States is Israel's most powerful ally, and without U.S. support it would be much harder for them to continue their genocide.

Free Palestine.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[Clay Jones]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 30, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 31, 2024

On Tuesday morning, on his social media outlet, former president Trump encouraged his supporters to buy a “God Bless The USA” Bible for $59.99. The Bible is my “favorite book,” he said in a promotional video, and said he owns “many.” This Bible includes the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Pledge of Allegiance. It also includes the chorus of country music singer Lee Greenwood’s song “God Bless the USA,” likely because it is a retread of a 2021 Bible Greenwood pushed to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of 9-11.

That story meant less coverage for the news from last Monday, March 25, in which Trump shared on his social media platform a message comparing him to Jesus Christ, with a reference to Psalm 109, which calls on God to destroy one’s enemies.  

This jumped out to me because Trump is not the first president to compare himself to Jesus Christ. In 1866, President Andrew Johnson famously did, too. While there is a financial component to Trump’s comparison that was not there for Johnson, the two presidents had similar political reasons for claiming a link to divine power.

Johnson was born into poverty in North Carolina, then became a tailor in Tennessee, where he rose through politics to the U.S. House of Representatives and then the Senate. In 1861, when Tennessee left the Union, Johnson was the only sitting senator from a Confederate state who remained loyal to the United States. This stand threw him into prominence. In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln named him the military governor of Tennessee. 

Then, in 1864, the Republican Party renamed itself the Union Party to attract northern Democrats to its standard. To help that effort, party leaders chose a different vice president, replacing a staunch Republican—Hannibal Hamlin of Maine—with the Democrat Johnson.

Although he was elected on what was essentially a Republican ticket, Johnson was a Democrat at heart. He loathed the elite southern enslavers he thought had become oligarchs in the years before the Civil War, shutting out poorer men like him from prosperity, but he was a fervent racist who enslaved people himself until 1863. Johnson opposed the new active government the Republicans had built during the war, and he certainly didn’t want it to enforce racial equality. He expected that the end of the war would mean a return to the United States of 1860, minus the system of enslavement that concentrated wealth upward. 

Johnson was badly out of step with the Republicans, but a quirk of timing gave him exclusive control of the reconstruction of the United States from April 15, 1865, when he took the oath of office less than three hours after Lincoln breathed his last, until early December. Congress had adjourned for the summer on March 4, expecting that Lincoln would call the members back together if there were an emergency, as he had in summer 1861. It was not due to reconvene until early December. Members of Congress rushed back to Washington, D.C., after Lincoln’s assassination, but Johnson insisted on acting alone.

Over the course of summer 1865, Johnson set out to resuscitate the prewar system dominated by the Democratic Party, with himself at its head. He pardoned all but about 1,500 former Confederates, either by proclamation or by presidential pardon, putting them back into power in southern society. He did not object when southern state legislatures developed a series of state laws, called Black Codes, remanding Black Americans into subservience.

When Congress returned to work on December 4, 1865, Johnson greeted the members with the happy news that he had “restored” the Union. Leaving soldiers in the South would have cost tax money, he said, and would have “envenomed hatred” among southerners. His exclusion of Black southerners from his calculus, although they were the most firmly loyal population in the South, showed how determined he was to restore prewar white supremacy, made possible by keeping power in the states. All Republican congressmen had to do, he said, was to swear in the southern senators and representatives now back in Washington, D.C., and the country would be “restored.”

Republicans wanted no part of his “restoration.” Not only did it return to power the same men who had been shooting at Republicans’ constituents eight months before and push northerners’ Black fellow soldiers to a form of quasi-enslavement, but also the 1870 census would count Black Americans as whole people rather than three fifths of a person, giving former Confederates more national political power after the war than they had had before it. Victory on the battlefields would be overturned by control of Congress.

Congressional Republicans rejected Johnson’s plan for reconstruction. Instead, they passed the Fourteenth Amendment  in June 1866 and required the former Confederate states to ratify it before they could be readmitted to the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment put the strength of the national government behind the idea that Black Americans would be considered citizens—as the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision had denied. Then it declared that states could neither discriminate against citizens nor take away a citizen’s rights without due process of the law. To make sure that the 1870 census would not increase the power of former Confederates, it declared that if any state kept men over 21 from voting, its representation in Congress would be reduced proportionally. 

Johnson hated the Fourteenth Amendment. He hated its broad definition of citizenship; he hated its move toward racial equality; he hated its undermining of the southern leaders he backed; he hated its assertion of national power; he hated that it offered a moderate route to reunification that most Americans would support. If states ratified it, he wouldn’t be able to rebuild the Democratic Party with himself at its head. 

So he told southern politicians to ignore Congress’s order to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, calling Congress an illegal body because it had not seated representatives from the southern states. He promised white southerners that the Democrats would win the 1866 midterm elections. Once back in power, he said, Democrats would repudiate the Republicans’ “radicalism” and put his plan back into place. 

As he asserted his vision for the country, Johnson egged on white supremacist violence. In July, white mobs attacked a Unionist convention in New Orleans where delegates had called for taking the vote away from ex-Confederates and giving it to loyal Black men. The rioters killed 37 Black people and 3 white delegates to the convention. 

By then, Johnson had become as unpopular as his policies. Increasingly isolated, he defended his plan for the nation as the only true course. In late August he broke tradition to campaign in person, an act at the time considered beneath the dignity of a president. He set off on a railroad tour, known as the “Swing Around the Circle,” to whip up support for the Democrats before the election. 

Speaking from the same set of notes as the train stopped at different towns and cities from Washington, D.C., to New York, to Chicago, to St. Louis, and back to Washington, D.C., Johnson complained bitterly about the opposition to his reconstruction policies, attacked specific members of Congress as traitors and called for them to be hanged, and described himself as a martyr like Lincoln. And, noting the mercy of his reconstruction policies, he compared himself to Jesus.  

It was all too much for voters. The white supremacist violence across the South horrified them, returning power to southern whites infuriated them, the reduction of Black soldiers to quasi-slaves enraged them, and Johnson’s attacks on Congress alarmed them. Johnson seemed determined to hand the country over to its former enemies to recreate the antebellum world that northerners had just poured more than 350,000 lives and $5 billion into destroying, no matter what voters wanted. 

Johnson’s extremism and his supporters’ violence created a backlash. Northerners were not willing to hand the country back to the Democrats who were rioting in the South and to a president who compared himself to Jesus. Rather than turning against the Republicans in the 1866 elections, voters repudiated Johnson. They gave Republicans a two-thirds majority of Congress, enabling them to override any policy Johnson proposed.

And, in 1868, the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, launching a new era in the history of the United States.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[plethoraworldatlas]

As the leading U.S. pro-Israel lobby's political action committee unleashes a nearly $2 million ad blitz targeting Congressman Jamaal Bowman, Jewish allies of the New York Democrat—who is an outspoken critic of what he and many experts call Israel's genocide in Gaza—on Thursday joined progressive lawmakers in condemning right-wing efforts to defeat pro-Palestine incumbents.

United Democracy Project (UDP), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) super PAC, has booked $1.9 million in television ads to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary in New York's 16th Congressional District, according to Wednesday reporting by Sludge's David Moore.

"This new ad spending in New York shows once and for all that my opponent, George Latimer, is bankrolled by a right-wing super PAC that has received over $40 million from Republican megadonors who want to defend Republican insurrectionists, overturn voting rights, and ban abortion nationwide," Bowman said in a statement.

"Democrats across New York deserve better, and will reject these attempts to buy our elections and undermine our democracy," he added.

Jews for Jamaal, a pro-Bowman coalition spearheaded by the group Jews for Racial & Economic Justice Action, said in a statement that "we recognize this media blitz for what it is: a desperate move by powerful interests to silence the district's first Black representative in history."

"UDP is overwhelmingly spending its millions in Democratic primaries, mostly against Black and brown Democratic incumbents who speak out against war and for the human rights of Palestinians," the coalition continued. "This massive amount of spending distorts the political landscape, drowning out the needs and voices of everyday constituents with the interests of a few wealthy donors."

"It undermines the very foundation of our democracy, which must be built on the principles of transparency, accountability, and genuine representation," Jews for Jamaal added.

[so-much-for-subtlety]

cw: trump, politics, rambling

it’s Iowa republikkkan caucus today (they forgot it is Martin Luther King Jr. day today) and this year will be my first time voting in prez elections (I submitted my citizenship application on MLK day 2020 which with pre-pandemic timelines would have got me enrolled in time but then pandemic hit

this weekend at farmers market I was getting my eggs & apples and I saw a cute guy carrying a fluffy mini dog who I would have clocked as a twink (my gaydar is still recalibrating to United States) except he was wearing a Latinos for Trump snapback and also it was so weather beaten and oil stained that you could tell he’s probably worn it most days for the last 8+ years.

one of the themes that have come up in therapy has been my desire to control my life and to understand it, and the conflict that can come from existing in an uncontrollable, unpredictable, and incomprehensible world.

it’s kind of funny but before 2016 I was so politically ignorant, I didn’t even really understand how U.S. government was structured and functioned. my naive political views were that the democratic and republican party were not so different from each other, then 2016 happened and I saw the GOP as the evil nemesis and democrats as our hero. now I’ve come full circle and see the two parties are more similar than different (but yes I will still vote, and yes trump reelected will be much MUCH worse than Biden, but I can be critical of Biden and still vote for the old bozo).

back in summer of 2017 I was in a bedstuy which is a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood in Brooklyn (Spike Lee’s “do the right thing” etc) and after 5 summers in my apartment had finally decided to get a window AC unit and went to local Home Depot. There are always guys with trucks in the parking lot that you can pay to lug stuff back to your place and this Black guy helped me with my AC. It was sooo funny because driving back he kept trying to trick me into admitting that I’d voted for trump (like he’d ask “so why did you vote for trump?”) and it took so much to convince him that I hadn’t voted (and if I had i absolutely wouldn’t have voted trump) we laughed about it and a couple times over the next few weeks he’d drive past me walking in the neighborhood and yell out “hey trump!” and wave to me lol.

so this election season I’m not going to engage, I’ve already taken a step back from social media (tumblr is only remaining place that I’m active), so I’m not going to post reminders to check voter registration, post the “I voted” selfie etc. my social circle is so homogenous - there’s no one I have to convince or influence.

im feeling pretty disillusioned about our political system, I don’t really feel that our government really does represent us as the people. Protests don’t do anything. Whatever happens will happen.

[polliantics]

14 US House members are calling for the release of Mahmoud Khalil, an activist who lead peaceful protests for Free Palestine, and was not only arrested, his lawyer currently does not know where he is, and Marco Rubio is taking away his green card and having him deported, while his wife in America is 6 months pregnant.

Fourteen Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed a letter demanding the immediate release of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The lawmakers argue that Khalil's arrest violates his constitutional rights to free speech and due process, as he has not been charged or convicted of any crime and was allegedly targeted solely for his activism.

The signatories of the letter are:

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (Michigan)

Rep. Mark Pocan (Wisconsin)

Rep. Nydia Velázquez (New York)

Rep. Delia Ramirez (Illinois)

Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minnesota)

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Texas)

Rep. Summer Lee (Pennsylvania)

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts)

Rep. Lateefah Simon (California)

Rep. Al Green (Texas)

Rep. Gwen Moore (Wisconsin)

Rep. André Carson (Indiana)

Rep. Nikema Williams (Georgia)

Rep. James McGovern (Massachusetts)

The letter, addressed to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, emphasizes that Khalil's detention is an attempt to criminalize political protest and poses a direct threat to free speech in the United States.

The arrest has sparked widespread criticism from civil rights organizations and other members of Congress, who view it as an infringement on constitutional rights and a dangerous precedent for suppressing dissent.

[bllsbailey]

Democrat Lawmakers Reintroduce Slavery Reparations Bill

Democrat Party 👇

Democrat lawmakers reintroduced legislation on Wednesday aiming to deliver slavery reparations to Black Americans amidst President Donald Trump’s federal purge of DEI policies.

Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), a member of the far-left Congressional group known as the “Squad,” and Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) are leading the charge to reintroduce H.R. 40 — also known as “the Commission to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans Act.”

Reparations could take many forms.

However, the term is generally referring to monetary payments made to Black Americans that are funded by U.S. taxpayers. It would aim to send funds to those who are descendents of American slaves.

“We find ourselves in a moment of emboldened white supremacy and anti-Black racism, and a weaponized Supreme Court that is actively gutting protections and progress that has been made,” Pressley stated on Wednesday.

“We have a hostile administration working actively to roll back decades of progress and more recent progress when it comes to our civil rights,” she continued.

“Our government, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office, has a moral and legal obligation to provide reparations for the enslavement of Africans and its lasting harm on Black communities.”

— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) February 12, 2025

H.R. 40 has been previously introduced time and time again over the past three decades, with former Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), who passed away over the summer from cancer — most recently expressing interest in the bill.

The bill was first introduced by former Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) in 1989, and the contents of the bill has not changed since its most recent session.

“I’m working actively to blunt the assaults from a hostile administration that means harm to everyone that calls this country home, but will have a disparate impact on Black Americans,” Pressley added. “Because throughout history, it has been proven that when other folks catch a cold, Black folks, figuratively, catch pneumonia.”

Despite Pressley’s enthusiasm, the bill is not likely to pass in the Republican-controlled Congress — prompting Americans to question why Booker and Pressley are “wasting their time” as politicians even attempting to pass it.

Her push for reparations also follows after President Donald Trump’s signed executive orders purging diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) in the federal government — aiming to return the U.S. to a meritocracy-based system, and one based on skill set and intelligence rather than skin color, sexual orientation, or gender.

According to a statement by Booker’s office last month, 17 Democratic senators are co-sponsoring the bill to “better understand where our country has fallen short” while helping “lawmakers better address the racial disparities and inequalities that persist today as a result of generational injustices.”

“We as a nation have not yet truly acknowledged and grappled with the ways slavery, racism, and white supremacy continue to disadvantage African Americans,” Booker added.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

[talksthesuccess]

USA’s Role In Paris Olympics 2024

USA’s Role In Paris Olympics 2024 – The Summer Olympics Games 2024 is going on in France. So the world’s greatest athletes from various nations prepare to showcase their exceptional skills and dedication on the grand stage of the highly anticipated 2024 Paris Olympic Games.

The U.S.A. currently dominates the bar of medals and has gathered many medals such as gold, silver, and bronze. Athletes from this country are crowning their nation through these medals. The U.S.A. has won 79 medals, continuously leading this Olympic 2024. All the athletes are showcasing their dedication, determination, and devotion towards their games and their nation.

Alongside rooting for their favorite athletes and countries, fans will undoubtedly engage in discussions and debates, pondering which nation will emerge victorious by accumulating the highest tally of medals, hence fixing their legacy and demonstrating their supremacy in the sphere of competitive sports.

So, let’s glorify the medal tally of the U.S.A. 

U.S.A. at the Olympic Games 2024 

The United States of America (USA), represented by the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), is taking part in the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris from July 26 to August 11, 2024. The athletes of the U.S. have glorified their nation in every Summer Olympic Games of the modern era. 

During the exciting opening ceremony, the honor of flag-bearers for the United States was granted to the accomplished athletes LeBron James and Coco Gauff. James, who has proudly won two Olympic gold medals, made history by becoming the first male basketball player selected for this prestigious role. On the other hand, at just 20 years old, Gauff showcased both her talent and youth by being named the youngest American athlete and the first tennis player to lead the team. 

Furthermore, As was observed and expected it has once again emerged that the United States of America’s team comprises more females in the Summer Olympics with 314 female athletes compared to 278 male athletes in the team. 

Medal Tally of USA at Olympics to be held at Paris 2024

Instantaneously, the 2024 Paris Olympics are already proceeding toward the finish line with 10 full days of action in the books. 

It’s been a massive Olympic Games for the United States so far, as they’re ruling the medal count at 79. Athletes are awarded because of their thriving performances. There are many inspiring tales of American athletes. For example, track star Noah Lyles became the fastest man in history when he won the closest 100-meter dash race in 44 years (0.005 seconds), earning his first-ever Olympic gold medal, and breaking records in the pool to become the most decorated American woman athlete ever with nine gold medals and fourteen in her trophy case.

Then there’s Scottie Scheffler, a native of North Jersey and currently the top-ranked golfer in the world, who pulled off a stunning comeback triumph in the Men’s Golf final round by tying the course record and winning the gold medal on Sunday afternoon with a score of 62.

Here is the medal tracker for the 12 countries with double-digit medals, along with an overview of the United States’ current standing and upcoming major events leading up to Sunday night’s Closing Ceremony. Day 10 is almost over.

The United States has become the spotlight because of topping the medal leaderboard a majority of these Olympic Games. So here’s the Summer Olympics medal tally of the USA. 

United States medal tracker has 78 medals (20 gold, 30 silver, and 28 bronze).

Gold Medals winners 

The USA has earned 20 gold medals in the Paris Olympic Games.

Swimming

Chris Guiliano, Abbey Weitzel, Bobby Finke, Katharine Berkoff, Lilly King, Alex Shackell, Emma Weber, Kate Douglas, Nic Fink, Regan Smith, Ryan Murphy, Charlie Swanson, Gretchen Walsh, Jack Alexj Hunter Armstrong, Caeleb Dressel, Ryan Held, Matt King, Torri Huske, Katie Ledecky,  are some of the people who have won gold medals 

Fencing 

Lee kiefer,Jacqueline Dubrovich, Lauren Scruggs, Maia Mei Weintraub 

Artistic Gymnastics

Simone Biles, Sunisa Lee, Jordan Chiles, Jade Carey, and Hezly Rivera have, Simone Biles also showcased their talent 

Rowing 

Michael Grady, Nick Mead, Justin Best, and Liam Corrigan also played very well in Rowing.

Shooting 

Vincent Hancock also successfully represented his nation and was praised with the gold medal for performing in Shooting 

Athletics

Ryan Crouser, Noah Lyles, and Valarie Allman won the medal for performing in Athletics.

Golf 

Kristen Faulkner for Cycling and Scottie Scheffler for Golf have won the taking place in the list of gold medalists.

Silver Medal Winners 

Along with the gold medalist, the US also has the silver medalist, and the players are listed below:

Diving 

Sarah Bacon/ Kassidy Cook is represented in Diving and performed successfully by winning the silver medal.

Swimming

Kate Douglass, Gretchen Walsh. Torri Huske, Simone Manuel, Erika Connolly, Abbey Weitzel, Nic Fink, Regan Smith, Bobby Finke, Carson Foster, Brooks Curry, Chris Guiliano, Luke Hobson, Drew Kibler, Blake Pieroni, Kieran Smith, Torrie Huske, Katie Grimes, Erin Gemmell, Katie Ledecky, Paige Madden, Simone Manuel, Anna Peplowski, Alex Shackell, Claire Weinstein, Kate Douglas and other athletes are gold medalists but also the winners of silver medal in Swimming.

Mountain bike

Mountain bikes are also represented by the Haley Battn which earned the silver medal.

Fencing 

Lauren Scruggs praised with the silver medal for Fencing 

Skateboarding

Jagger Eaton is the silver medal winner in Skateboarding 

Cycling 

Perris Benegas has won the competition of Cycling BMX Freestyle 

Equestrian 

Karl Cook, Laura Kraut, and McLain Ward are performing in Equestrian 

Shooting 

Sagen Maddalena and Conner Lynn Prince have won the Shooting 

Athletics 

Joe Kovacs, Kaylyn Brown, Bryce Deadmon, Sha’Carri Richardson, Shamier Little, Vernon Norwood, and Sha’Carri Richardson have won for Athletics 

Tennis 

Austin Krajicek and Rajeev Ram have won the Tennis 

Archery 

Brady Ellison also won the silver medal for performing in Archery.

Bronze Medals 

Chloe Dygert won for performing in Women’s individual time trial 

Swimming

Katie Ledecky, Carson Foster, Luke Hobson, Ryan Murphy, Emma Weyant, Katherine Berkoff, and Paige Madden  also earned the bronze medal for Swimming 

Skateboarding 

Nyjah Huston won for Skateboarding 

Fencing 

Nick Itkin for Fencing 

Artistic Gymnastics 

Frederick Richard, Brody Malone, Stephen Nedoroscik. Paul Juda, Asher Hong, Sunia Lee, Jade Carey, and Jordan Chiles 

Rugby 7s

Ilona Maher, Kayla Canett, Lauren Doyle, Alev Kelter, Kristi Kirshe, Sarah Levy, Alena Olsen, Ariana Ramsey, Steph Rovetti, Alex Sedrick, Sammy Sullivan, Naya Tapper for Rugby 7s

Canoe 

Evy Leibfarth for Canoe 

Archery

Brady Ellison, Casey Kaufhold

Athletics 

Grant Fisher, Jasmine Moore, Melissa Jefferson, Fred Kerley for Athletics

Sailing

Ian Barrows, Hans Henken for Sailing 

Rowing 

Henry Hollingsworth, Rielly Milne, Evan Olson, Pieter Quinton, Nick Rusher, Chris Carlson, Peter Chatain, Clark Dean, Nick Rusher, Christian Tabash

Tennis

Taylor Fritz, Tommy Paul 

Shooting 

Austen Jewell Smith for Shooting 

3×3 basketball

Cierra Burdick, Dearica Hamby, Rhyne Howard Hailey van Lith

Read More:- Business Risk: A Comprehensive Guide

[ebelal56-blog]

The Birth of Democracy: Uncovering History's Secrets

In the summer of 1787, a group of men gathered in Philadelphia, their minds swirling with ideas that would shape the future of a nation. They were not just delegates; they were visionaries, architects of a bold experiment that would redefine governance. The ratification of the U.S. Constitution was not merely an event; it was the birth of a new identity, a departure from the chains of monarchy that had long shackled the world. It was a moment when the ink on parchment would give rise to a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The Constitution emerged as the supreme law, a blueprint outlining the structure and functions of a government that sought to balance power among its branches. It was a revolutionary concept, one that would prevent tyranny by ensuring that no single entity could dominate the political landscape. The Founding Fathers, figures like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, infused their knowledge of history and political theory into this document, crafting a framework that would accommodate diverse interests and perspectives. Franklin, with his wit and wisdom, navigated the turbulent waters of debate, brokering compromises that would allow the fledgling nation to stand united. His experience as a diplomat, securing French support during the Revolution, lent him a unique insight into the delicate art of negotiation. And then there was Jefferson, a man whose influence loomed large despite his absence from the Constitutional Convention. His words in the Declaration of Independence echoed in the hearts of those gathered, a reminder that the government must be accountable to the people. Jefferson's advocacy for individual rights resonated deeply, shaping the very essence of what this new government would represent. The Constitution was not just a set of rules; it was a promise, a commitment to uphold the ideals of liberty and justice. Yet, the path to ratification was fraught with challenges. The debates were heated, reflecting the diverse interests of the states and factions involved. Issues of representation and federalism ignited passionate discussions, as delegates grappled with the balance of power. The compromises reached were not merely concessions; they were the lifeblood of democracy, ensuring that every voice, every concern, found its place in the grand design. The Lee Resolution, proposed by Richard Henry Lee in 1776, had set the stage for this moment, calling for independence and laying the groundwork for the principles that would soon be enshrined in the Constitution. As the delegates deliberated, they understood that they were embarking on a monumental journey. They were not just drafting a document; they were establishing a legacy that would resonate through the ages. The system of checks and balances they devised was a safeguard against the very tyranny they sought to escape. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches would serve as a triad of power, each keeping the others in check, ensuring that no single branch could rise above the rest. This intricate dance of power was a testament to their foresight, a recognition that human nature, with all its flaws, required a system that could adapt and endure. The establishment of the U.S. Constitution was indeed a bold experiment, one that would inspire future democratic systems around the globe. It was a declaration that governance could be rooted in the consent of the governed, that the people could wield the power to shape their destiny. The principles of federalism and separation of powers would become cornerstones of American political life, guiding the nation through trials and triumphs alike. As we reflect on that pivotal moment in 1787, we recognize that the Constitution is not just a historical document; it is a living testament to the ideals of democracy. It reminds us that the journey is ongoing, that the responsibility to uphold these principles lies with each generation. The birth of American democracy was not an end, but a beginning-a call to action, a challenge to ensure that the promise of liberty and justice remains alive for all.

[how2fit]

Olympians are everywhere right now and doing the most ahead of the 2024 Paris Olympics, from rugby player Ilona Maher launching an active skin-care line to Suni Lee, the 21-year-old gymnast who was just named ambassador for Kiss Products. During a webinar with Kiss, Lee talked through her favorite hair, skin, and makeup products, including her go-to dry shampoo, hair gel, and—yes—the drugstore setting spray from L'Oreal that keeps her makeup intact during her highest-stress competitions. If you need a refresher, Lee is a complete boss, bringing home three medals in the Tokyo Games: silver with the U.S. team, gold in the all-around, and bronze on the uneven bars. She is also the first Hmong-American Olympian and the first Asian-American woman to win the all-around title. Earlier this month, she qualified for the Paris 2024 Games and will once again represent Team USA alongside her teammates Simone Biles, Jordan Chiles, Jade Carey, and Hezly Rivera.  Lee is the newest ambassador for the Kiss Salon X-tend system, which combines a one-step adhesive and a curing lamp so you can do gel extensions at home. I've personally used it and—seriously—I can have a fresh set of nails in under 30 minutes with a one-year-old at home. "This makes it super easy to do my nails on the go," Lee says during the video call.  Beauty is a huge part Lee's routine as an athlete, and she says that getting ready with full hair and makeup is one of her favorite parts of competitions. It has also allowed her to find her go-to products for competing including L'Oreal Infallible Setting Spray ($11), which she swears by for keeping her makeup in place. "I use pressed powder, then I bake with loose powder and finish with setting spray," she says. But even before makeup goes on, Lee says she's been focusing on a solid skin-care routine, which almost always includes Tatcha Dewy Moisturizer ($72) which she calls a "good makeup base." Lee also credits Batiste Dry Shampoo ($10) and Got2B Spiking Glue ($8) for keeping her hair slicked back and grease-free during competitions. Lee doesn't have much time outside of preparing for Paris these days, so she's keeping her routine quick. "Less is more is my beauty mantra lately," she says. However, her outlook on competing is a little different. Her pep talk before getting in the gym? "Nothing more and nothing less, as long as you give it your best." She stresses that her focus is beating her average and giving it her all on the floor, which we're excited to see. Lee will be competing in the Women’s Qualifications on July 28. NBCUniversal is the official U.S. broadcaster for the Paris 2024 Summer Olympics, but you can also watch on Peacock, NBCOlympics.com, NBC.com, USA Network, CNBC, and E! You can also follow along Well+Good's ongoing Olympic coverage with our Summer of Champions series.

[mariacallous]

According to recent U.S. government estimates, approximately 315,000 Russian soldiers have either been killed or wounded in the ongoing war in Ukraine. In comparison, Kyiv has lost a smaller number of troops than that on the battlefield—as many as 200,000—but has probably suffered just as many overall losses when civilian casualties from Russia’s indiscriminate bombardments and shellings are taken into account. The pace of the bloodshed in 2023 appears, by the best unclassified estimates, to have been similar to that of 2022.

For some, these numbers would suggest that Ukraine, with only about 1/4 the population of Russia within its borders today, cannot achieve victory or even sustain this conflict much longer. As a BBC journalist put it flatly, “time is not on Ukraine’s side.” Reports of corruption within military recruiting commands have intensified concerns, prompting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to replace many of his senior military recruiters this past year in response. By November 2023, after 20 months of fighting, the average age of a Ukrainian soldier had risen to around 43 years old—a stark shift from the average age of 30 to 35 years old just one month into the conflict in March 2022.

Ukraine is now considering lowering its minimum draft age from 27 to 25 and whether it should try to grow its nearly million-strong military by an additional 50%. Ideally, the proposed mobilization could break the current military stalemate in 2024 or 2025, while also allowing some of those who have been on the frontlines over the last two years, to get a break or finally conclude their service and return home to their families.

Our reading of the demographics and of military history suggests that Ukraine does indeed have a serious problem on its hands. Demographic trends aren’t in Ukraine’s favor and wavering Western support casts a huge cloud. Yet, despite these challenges, Ukraine is not facing an acute and immediate manpower crisis and is not at short-to-medium-term risk of losing the war due to a hollowed-out army.

It’s crucial to acknowledge that troops and society-as-a-whole, are exhibiting signs of fatigue. Yet tiredness must not be misconstrued as readiness to surrender, nor should lower morale be mistaken for irresoluteness. This is not the moment to make Ukraine’s projected long-term challenges a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat.

Consider some analogies from past wars. By summer 1864, Union troops in the American Civil War were due to reach the end of their three-year enlistments en masse. General Sherman had yet to take Atlanta; Generals Meade and Grant were losing battles to General Lee on a regular basis. Relative to Ukraine’s current plight, Union forces represented twice as large a share of the nation’s population and were suffering fatalities at roughly five times the annual rate per capita. As historian Bruce Catton wrote of the nation’s military manpower system, “Once it brought in the country’s best men, and now it brought in the worst.” Yet the Union prevailed.

In World War I, a conflict of which the current Ukraine war evokes memories for many, loss rates for each of the major parties were several hundred thousand fatalities a year—roughly ten times greater than in the current catastrophe. Yet no major military started to break until three years into the struggle. No one is wishing a similar fate upon Ukrainians or even Russians today. Nevertheless, the capacity for human resolve in the face of immense suffering should not be underestimated, especially when the cause is just, and national survival is at stake.

Kyiv does not disclose official troop or casualty numbers, but Ukraine is believed to have raised nearly one million troops out of a population of about 37 million (excluding refugees who have left the country) by relying on volunteer fighters and a draft that includes healthy men between the ages of 27 and 60. Meanwhile, it has been losing about 100,000 troops per year as casualties. Sustaining the force at its current size—or even enlarging it—will likely not be possible absent a change in policy.

Approximately 215,000 Ukrainian men will turn 27 this upcoming year. However, many of the most qualified individuals have already volunteered, while many others have health issues or nationally required professional specialties that preclude service. And yes, some will try to game the system to avoid service, as we have seen in most of America’s wars, too (even the most righteous, like the Revolution and Civil War). Considering these factors, Ukraine will most likely struggle to find 50,000 recruits this upcoming year, based on past trends.

But the situation is a far cry from the prospect of imminent defeat. Kiev has options. Lower the draft age to 25, as officially proposed in a draft bill by the Ukrainian cabinet. This change could potentially render up to 395,000 men turning 25 and 26 this coming year eligible to be conscripted, in addition to the approximately 215,000 Ukrainian men turning 27. Lowering the draft age to 21 would make approximately 685,000 more men potentially eligible and lowering it to 18 another 490,000. Create more incentives for women to join. Address claims of mistreatment of soldiers. And, if Western aid will support it, pay troops better so as to increase the proclivity to serve (we do not consider it inappropriate to employ such tools within America’s own military, nor should the Ukrainians). With such steps, Ukraine could, if necessary, sustain the current fight through the decade.

None of this is to suggest Ukraine should fight this war indefinitely, of course, and at some point, Ukrainians may decide that an imperfect peace (if negotiable with Russia) is preferable to more carnage. But in a fight for Ukrainian national survival, we should be reticent to make that judgment for them just yet. And nothing about core demographic fundamentals suggests they should feel forced to reach it themselves anytime soon.

[angel0news]

Could Kamala Harris Beat Trump In US Presidential Race? Polls Suggest…

She worries Republican donors, has name recognition, and Democratic Party heavyweights are beginning to line up behind her.

Vice President Kamala Harris would be President Joe Biden's natural successor if he bowed to growing pressure and stepped aside as the Democratic candidate in the 2024 election, top Democrats say.

Now party donors, activists and officials are asking: Does she have a better chance than Biden of beating Donald Trump? Biden is staying in the race, he has said repeatedly.

Harris, 59, a former U.S. senator and California attorney general, would be the first woman to become president of the United States if she were the party's nominee and prevailed in the Nov. 5 election. She is the first African American and Asian person to serve as vice president.

Her three-and-a-half-year White House tenure has been characterized by a lackluster start, staff turnover, and early policy portfolios including migration from Central America that did not produce major successes.

As recently as last year, many inside the White House and the Biden campaign team privately worried Harris was a liability for the campaign. The situation has changed significantly since then, Democratic officials have said, as she stepped forward on abortion rights and courted young voters.

Recent polls suggest Harris could do better than Biden against Trump, the Republican candidate, although she would face a tight contest.

A CNN poll released on July 2 found voters favor Trump over Biden by six percentage points, 49% to 43%. Harris also trailed Trump, 47% to 45%, within the margin of error.

It also found independents back Harris 43%-40% over Trump, and moderate voters of both parties prefer her 51-39%.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll after last week's televised debate between Trump and a faltering Biden found Harris and Trump were nearly tied, with 42% supporting her and 43% backing him.

Only former first lady Michelle Obama, who has never expressed any interest in getting into the race, polled higher among possible alternatives to Biden.

Internal polling shared by the Biden campaign after the debate shows Harris with the same odds as Biden of beating Trump, with 45% of voters saying they would vote for her versus 48% for Trump.

Influential Democrats including U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn, the man who was key to Biden's 2020 win; Rep. Gregory Meeks, a New York congressman and senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus and Summer Lee, a House Democrat from Pennsylvania have signaled Harris would be the best option to lead the ticket if Biden chooses to step aside.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has also privately signaled the same to lawmakers, a Congressional aide said.

Harris is taken so seriously, two Republican donors told Reuters they would prefer for Trump to face Biden than her.

"I would prefer Biden to stay in place" rather than be replaced by Harris, said Pauline Lee, a fundraiser for Trump in Nevada after the June 27 debate, who said she thought Biden had proved himself to be "incompetent."

And some on Wall Street, an important Democratic fundraising center, are starting to indicate a preference.

"Biden is already behind Trump, and is unlikely to be able to overcome that gap given where his campaign is currently. Having VP Harris likely improves Democrats' odds of taking the White House," said Sonu Varghese, global macro strategist at Carson Group, a financial services company, after the debate. "There's potentially more upside for her chances than Biden's at this point."

A majority of Americans see Harris in a negative light, as they do both men running for president.

Polling outlet Five Thirty Eight said 37.1% of voters approve of Harris and 49.6% disapprove. Those numbers compare to 36.9% and 57.1% for Biden, and 38.6% and 53.6% for Trump.

Since the Supreme Court repealed women's constitutional right to abortion in 2022, Harris has become the Biden administration's foremost voice on reproductive rights, an issue Democrats are betting on to help them win the 2024 election.

Some Democrats believe Harris could energize Democratic-leaning groups whose enthusiasm for Biden has faded, including Black voters, young voters and those who do not approve of Biden's handling of the Israel-Hamas war.

"She would energize the Black, brown, and Asian Pacific members of our coalition…she would immediately pull the dispirited youth of our country back into the fold," said Tim Ryan, a former Democratic Congressman from Ohio, in a recent op-ed.

Democratic and Republican suburban women may also be more comfortable with her then Trump or Biden, he said.

As vice president, Harris's public Israel strategy is identical to Biden's, although she was the first senior leader of the U.S. government to call for a ceasefire in March.

"Simply swapping out the candidate does not address the central concern" of the movement, said Abbas Alawieh, a member of the national "Uncommitted" movement that withheld votes for Biden in the primary based on his support of Israel.

If Biden were to step aside, there could be a competition between other Democrats to become the nominee.

If the party were then to choose another candidate over Harris, some Democrats say it could lose the support of many Black voters who were critical to Biden's election win in 2020.

"There is no alternative besides Kamala Harris," said Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of Black voter outreach group BlackPAC.

"If the Democratic Party thinks that they have problems now with their base being confused… Jump over the Black woman, the vice president, and I don't think the Democratic Party actually recovers."

However, Harris may struggle to reel in moderate Democrats and the independent voters who like Biden's centrist policies, some Democratic donors said. Both parties seek independents to help pull them over the finishing line in presidential elections.

"Her greatest weakness is that her public brand has been associated with the far left wing of the Democratic Party … and the left wing of the Democratic party cannot win a national election," said Dmitri Mehlhorn, a fundraiser and adviser to LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman. "That is the challenge that she will have to overcome if she is the nominee."

Harris would take over money raised by the Biden campaign and inherit campaign infrastructure, a critical advantage with just four months before election day on Nov. 5.

But any Democratic campaign still needs to raise hundreds of millions of dollars more before November to be successful, strategists say. And there, Harris could be a liability.

"I can tell you we have a really tough time raising money for her" said a source at the Democratic National Committee.

As a presidential candidate ahead of the 2020 election, Harris lagged Biden in raising money. She dropped out of the race in December 2019, the same month her campaign reported $39.3 million in total contributions. Biden's campaign reported $60.9 million in the same period.

However, Biden's campaign raised a record $48 million in the 24 hours after he named Harris as his running mate in 2020.

Harris's prosecutorial background could shine in a head-to-head debate against Trump, some Democrats said.

"She is incredibly focused and forceful and smart, and if she prosecutes the case against the criminality of Donald Trump, she will rip him apart," said Mehlhorn.

Republican attacks on Harris are ramping up as she has been floated as a possible Biden replacement. Conservative talking heads are re-circulating criticism leveled at her during the 2020 race, including from some Democrats, that Harris laughs too much, that she is untested, and unqualified.

Kelly Dittmar, a political science professor at Rutgers University, said the attacks are part of a long history of objectifying and denigrating women of color in politics.

"Unfortunately the reliance on both racist and sexist attacks and tropes against women running for office is historically common and persists to this day," said Dittmar.

[coprelawland]

How Morrison v. National Australia Bank Set a New Legal Precedent Towards Anti-Fraud Regulations

By Summer Lee, University of Colorado Boulder Class of 2023

December 12, 2023

Morrison v. National Australia Bank is a landmark case that changed the legal precedent previously set by lower U.S. district courts regarding anti-fraud laws. The lawsuit began after National Australia Bank purchased Homeside Lending company in 1998. Following the purchase of Homeside Lending and write-downs on its assets, the value of National Australia Bank’s shares decreased. This caused the petitioner party, Australian purchasers of the National Australia Bank’s shares, to file a lawsuit against the company in 2001. The petitioner party filed the lawsuit on the grounds that the company inaccurately represented the value of its mortgage-servicing rights. For this reason, the petitioner party claimed that the write-downs violated two U.S. anti-fraud regulations:  Articles 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5 of the SEC Rule. In response, the National Australia Bank appealed to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to argue that the case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and should be dismissed by the Second Circuit of the U.S. District Court [1]. 

As a result, the District Court initially agreed that they did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and approved the respondent’s request to dismiss the case. The decision was made based on a conduct and effect test, which was used to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction was applicable. During a conduct test, the court had to decide if domestic actions (i.e., the actions of U.S. companies) has caused direct losses to the petitioner parties. The court had to also consider if the U.S.’s jurisdiction in the case would help disincentivize instances of fraud towards the investors involved. The effects test was then used to decide if the fraud which occurred outside of the U.S. significantly impacted U.S. citizens or the market [2].  Despite the decision of the District Court, the petitioner party appealed the case, and it was eventually submitted to the U.S Supreme Court. 

Purchasers of National Australia Bank’s shares submitted an appeal to the District Court. They also argued that the conduct and effects test mentioned by the District Court in fact supported their claims. The party explained that since the Homeside Lending company is based in the U.S., the write-down of the company’s assets along with the purchaser’s financial losses does fulfill the conditions of the conduct test. In return, the Second Circuit District Court did not approve the appeal because the claims insufficiently supported the conduct test. The Second Circuit District Court argued that the claims were insufficient since the National Australia Bank’s purchase of Homeside Lending was a main contributing factor to the fraud that occurred, there were no claims regarding how the U.S. market or its citizens were affected, and the petitioner party had used a long series of causal claims that attempted to reinforce the relationship between domestic acts of fraud and the damages it has inflicted towards the petitioner party [2].

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the lower division court’s decision, they also declined the petitioner party’s requests in 2010. Contrary to the lower district court’s use of the conduct and effects test in their decision, however, the Supreme Court established a different legal precedent. In regard to the basis of the lower division court’s decision, the Supreme Court argued that the conduct and effects test was an unreliable interpretation of Section 10(b) Securities Exchange Act [3]. Alternatively, the Supreme Court introduced a new interpretation of the regulation through the transactional test, which sought to narrow the scope of Section 10(b) to exchanges on a domestic level. Through the transactional test, the Supreme Court also shifted the focus of the Securities Exchange Act from the origin of fraudulent conduct to U.S. transactions instead [4]. By setting these new legal precedents, the decision limited the number of protections available to investors. The new legal precedent meant that courts are not obligated to act upon other investment claims that involve the conduct and effects test, and that companies may take advantage of the limited fraud liabilities regarding overseas exchanges [2].

______________________________________________________________

Summer Lee is pursuing a B.A. in International Affairs at the University of Colorado Boulder. She is planning to graduate in the Fall of 2023 and pursue a J.D. in international law.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Legal Information Institute. (2010, June 24). Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (No. 08-1191) 547 F. 3d 167, Affirmed. Supreme Court. https://www.law.cornell.edu/su pct/html/08-1191.ZO.html

[2] Geevarghese, N. M. (2011). A Shocking Loss of Investor Protection: The Implications of Morrison v. National Australia Bank. Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law, 6(1), 235–259. https://doi.org/https://brooklynwork s.brooklaw.edu/bjcfcl/vol6/iss1/9

[3] Gerber, J., Cooper, R., & Bernstein, A. (2020, October 12). Cleary Gottlieb Discusses the Morrison Decision, 10 Years On. The CLS Blue Sky Blog. https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2020/10/12/cleary-gottlieb-discusses-the-morrison-decision-10-years-on/

[4] Rotman, E. (2021). In Regulating Fraud Across Borders: Internationalised Criminal Law Protection of Capital Markets (pp. 48–52). essay, Bloomsbury Publishing.

[plethoraworldatlas]

As the leading U.S. pro-Israel lobby's political action committee unleashes a nearly $2 million ad blitz targeting Congressman Jamaal Bowman, Jewish allies of the New York Democrat—who is an outspoken critic of what he and many experts call Israel's genocide in Gaza—on Thursday joined progressive lawmakers in condemning right-wing efforts to defeat pro-Palestine incumbents.

United Democracy Project (UDP), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) super PAC, has booked $1.9 million in television ads to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary in New York's 16th Congressional District, according to Wednesday reporting by Sludge's David Moore.

"This new ad spending in New York shows once and for all that my opponent, George Latimer, is bankrolled by a right-wing super PAC that has received over $40 million from Republican megadonors who want to defend Republican insurrectionists, overturn voting rights, and ban abortion nationwide," Bowman said in a statement.

"Democrats across New York deserve better, and will reject these attempts to buy our elections and undermine our democracy," he added.

Jews for Jamaal, a pro-Bowman coalition spearheaded by the group Jews for Racial & Economic Justice Action, said in a statement that "we recognize this media blitz for what it is: a desperate move by powerful interests to silence the district's first Black representative in history."

"UDP is overwhelmingly spending its millions in Democratic primaries, mostly against Black and brown Democratic incumbents who speak out against war and for the human rights of Palestinians," the coalition continued. "This massive amount of spending distorts the political landscape, drowning out the needs and voices of everyday constituents with the interests of a few wealthy donors."

"It undermines the very foundation of our democracy, which must be built on the principles of transparency, accountability, and genuine representation," Jews for Jamaal added.

[antonio-velardo]

Antonio Velardo shares: Primary Battles Brew Over Progressive Democrats’ Stances on Israel by Jonathan Weisman

By Jonathan Weisman Representative Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, who joined calls for a cease-fire, has become one of several progressive lawmakers facing new pressure from primary challengers. Published: October 29, 2023 at 05:02AM from NYT U.S. https://ift.tt/lpJdSaF via IFTTT

[allurlsaregone-blog]