List of All Articles with Tag 'd'

A federal judge on Thursday unsealed the identities of the co-signers on embattled Rep. George Santos' $500,000 bond that allowed the New York Republican to stay out of federal custody after he was charged in a 13-count indictment.

Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes edged higher in May and the national median sale price posted its biggest annual drop in more than a decade, even as the supply of available properties sank to an all-time low

China says it has registered a formal protest over President Joe Biden's description of China's leader as a dictator

By Daphne Psaledakis WASHINGTON The United States on Wednesday adjourned Sudan talks because the format was not succeeding

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Democratic candidate for the presidency, went on the Jordan B. Peterson podcast on June 5 and told a wild and false story about me from 2005 that I want to tell you about.

Vice President Kamala Harris has said she knows of young people choosing which college they want to attend based on how restrictive the abortion laws are in that state. Commenting in an interview for the Roe v Wade retrospective on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, Ms Harris said her goddaughter told her that her friends wanted to attend schools in states where there was more freedom in terms of reproductive rights. Ms Harris told the roundtable: “When the decision came down she told me ‘Do you know what’s happening? My friends – whatever gender – are starting to make decisions about where they will actually go to college depending on what’s happening in that state.’” “Because of course, if you look at it, I think the number is something like 23 million women of reproductive age live in states that have banned abortion, and what that is gonna mean for those 23 million, for the myriad of health care issues that are at stake ... It’s having a real impact on all types of decisions people make,” she added. The show took a look back at the decision to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade decision that legalised abortion in the US in 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled that “unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional”. In 2022, the Supreme Court, packed with three Trump-era appointees, overturned Roe v Wade and returned decisions on abortion freedom to the states. Since then, a number of states have introduced effective abortion bans that limit the procedure to the very early days of pregnancy – often before women are aware they are pregnant. Some states have also criminalised assisting women with accessing abortion, and limited abortion to cases of rape or incest. Ms Harris said that the Supreme Court’s decision last year had infringed on women’s rights. “The idea that the highest court in our land just did that and rolled back rights that had been recognized was incredibly shocking,” she said on MSNBC. She said that after she learned the news of the ruling, she called her husband and shared some “words not meant for television at this moment”. Ms Harris went on to say that the ruling means that some have to “suffer in silence,” the thought of which made her “angry and sad”. Read More Where abortion laws stand in every state a year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe A year after fall of Roe, 25 million women live in states with abortion bans or tighter restrictions Judge to weigh suspending Wyoming's first-in-the-nation ban on abortion pills US prepares for potential end of Roe v Wade - live When will there be a Roe v Wade decision? Why these prosecutors are refusing to enforce anti-abortion laws

American pig farmers are losing so much money that some may soon start selling the corn they would

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a multilateral development bank, is in talks to guarantee a climate-related bond being

The Polish Securities Commission is investigating potential insider trading in the shares of utility EC Bedzin SA after

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said returning US inflation to 2% is crucial to support the long-term health

Turkey’s state-run banks didn’t intervene to prop up the lira on Thursday, even after a central bank interest-rate

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has defended the newspaper’s decision to publish a defensive column from US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who dismissed allegations of wrongdoing detailed in an investigative news outlet before it had even published its story. The conservative justice – who authored the court’s landmark opinion overturning Roe v Wade one year ago – failed to disclose private jet travel and a luxury fishing trip with a hedge fund billionaire who would later repeatedly ask the nation’s highest court to intervene on his behalf, according to ProPublica’s findings published on 21 June. ProPublica, which has published several investigative pieces outlining alleged ethical lapses among members of the court, had yet to publish its report before The Wall Street Journal ran his column with the blunt and accusatory headline “ProPublica Misleads Its Readers”. Later that day, the editorial board defended its decision to run his defensive piece. “The political assault on the Supreme Court continues, and the latest Justice in the grinder is Samuel Alito,” the board wrote. “As usual, this is a non-scandal built on partisan spin intended to harm the Justice and the current Court majority.” The Wall Street Journal did not return The Independent’s request for comment or explain how it commissioned Mr Alito’s column and how the newspaper made a decision to publish a response to ProPublica before anyone read its reporting. “Justice Alito clearly wanted his defense to receive public disclosure in full, not edited piecemeal. We saw ProPublica’s list of 18 questions and had a good idea of where the reporters were going. The story proved us right,” the editorial board wrote. “It is also hilarious to be denounced for betraying the media brotherhood for the offense of scooping the competition,” the board added, appearing to dismiss criticism that the newspaper provided a venue for a powerful figure before allegations against him were publicised at length as merely a resentful media story. “This is the same crowd that would prefer if we didn’t exist,” the board added. “Their pearl-clutching reveals the degree of media conformity when it comes to approved progressive political targets like Justice Alito.” The board stated that it is defending the Supreme Court “because someone has to,” alleging that the investigations are not about sincere ethics questions but are instead about “the left’s fury at having lost control of the Court” and instead to “destroy” it. ProPublica’s founding editor-in-chief Paul E Steiger served as the managing editor of the Wall Street Journal from 1991 to 2007. Stephen Engelberg, ProPublica’s current editor-in-chief, told The New York Times that Mr Alito’s column “declared without anyone having read the article and without asking for our comment.” “We’re curious to know whether The Journal fact-checked the essay before publication,” he added. Read More Justice Alito tries to get ahead of damning report about billionaire gifts with defensive Wall Street Journal op-ed Wall Street Journal under fire for Justice Alito op-ed: ‘This has simply broken my brain’ Deb Haaland and Tribal leaders welcome Supreme Court decision upholding Indian Child Welfare Act Supreme Court rules Alabama discriminated against Black voters in major victory for voting rights