Global News Authority

A group of Democratic senators is once again pushing for major changes to how long Supreme Court justices serve, bringing renewed attention to the debate over judicial term limits.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) reintroduced the Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act on July 22, with 12 Senate Democrats listed as co-sponsors, including Cory Booker, Adam Schiff, Alex Padilla and Mazie Hirono.

The proposal would establish an 18-year period for justices to serve on the Court’s main docket while creating a regular appointment schedule. Under the plan, presidents would nominate a new justice during the first and third years of each presidential term.

Once a justice reaches 18 years, they would move into senior status. They could continue performing limited judicial duties and potentially return to the active bench when needed, while retaining their lifetime judicial appointment.

Supporters of the proposal argue that regular appointments could reduce situations in which one president fills several Supreme Court vacancies while another president has no opportunity to make an appointment. They also argue that a predictable schedule could lessen the incentive for justices to time their retirements around a particular administration.

The idea was first introduced by Democrats in 2023 and has remained part of the broader debate over Supreme Court reform, ethics and the structure of lifetime judicial appointments. A separate constitutional-amendment proposal has also been introduced in the House to establish term limits directly.

The proposals face significant obstacles in the Republican-controlled Congress, but the renewed push shows that Supreme Court term limits and judicial reform remain active issues in Washington.

He moved to block funding that Congress had already approved for immigrant services and diversity-related programs — nearly $1 billion in spending that supporters of the cuts argue would not have directly improved everyday costs like groceries or local roads.

Democrats are expected to challenge the move as unlawful, arguing that the administration cannot simply withhold funds that lawmakers have authorized. Supporters of the funding cuts, however, say taxpayers should not be responsible for maintaining what they describe as a separate system of benefits for people who were not intended to receive priority.

The debate ultimately comes down to how federal dollars should be spent, who should receive them, and whether the administration has the authority to stop money that Congress has already allocated.

For working Americans, the question remains: should these funds continue to be spent on these programs, or should the money be redirected toward other priorities?

It took just two weeks for the case to be reconsidered after the public learned more about the woman’s account.

The civil lawsuit was filed on September 14. On Monday, Van Houten announced that he would present the matter to a Tompkins County grand jury, with a senior prosecutor assigned to the case. He said the decision followed requests from members of the community to reconsider whether criminal charges should be pursued against the seven fraternity members.

Van Houten told ABC that the allegations described in the lawsuit were substantially different from what the woman reported to Cornell campus police in 2024. He said her earlier statement did not include an allegation that she had unknowingly been drugged or was incapacitated.

His office, however, reviewed the Cornell police file rather than conducting an independent investigation. Van Houten said his office did not receive a Snapchat screenshot that her attorney says police already possessed.

An attorney representing Scott Kretzschmar has disputed the allegations, describing the woman's claims as false and self-serving.

Her lawyer also argues that the original statement was taken by a campus officer and that neither a trained detective nor a prosecutor personally interviewed her.

New York law generally provides that a person who is unable to communicate an unwillingness to participate cannot legally consent, regardless of how the person's incapacitation occurred.

The decision has also drawn attention to Van Houten's handling of an earlier Cornell fraternity-related death. In 2020, after a Cornell freshman died following a fraternity party, he declined to convene a grand jury, saying he would not do so simply to bring Cornell students before one.

Now, six years later, a grand jury is being convened in this case.

The renewed investigation followed sustained attention from the woman, who left Cornell and later filed a 101-page civil lawsuit involving the university, a fraternity and seven men, as well as student journalists at The Cornell Daily Sun, who reported on the lawsuit and continued covering the allegations.

The grand jury process is only the beginning. But the case has raised broader questions about how sexual-assault allegations are investigated, why some cases are closed without criminal charges, and whether additional evidence or public scrutiny can lead authorities to reconsider earlier decisions.

Cardi B made a direct political statement to her audience, saying that fans who support Donald Trump should not expect to support her at the same time. She indicated that those followers were no longer welcome on her social media platforms.

The comments immediately sparked a divided reaction. Critics accused the rapper of turning her platform into a political filter, while supporters praised her for openly standing behind her political views and using her influence to make that position clear.

The episode highlights how political disagreements have increasingly become intertwined with celebrity culture, fan communities and the relationship between entertainers and their audiences.

The Tullahoma City Schools Board of Education unanimously approved a new policy on October 21, 2025, limiting which flags and displays can appear inside school buildings and classrooms. Under the policy, the U.S. and Tennessee flags are generally permitted, while other displays must be directly connected to the curriculum or an officially school-sanctioned program.

The decision came after weeks of debate surrounding Pride flags in Tullahoma High School classrooms. The issue gained additional attention after a teacher’s classroom display became part of a wider controversy involving comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Former Tullahoma Alderman Daniel Berry also promoted a petition calling for stricter limits on classroom flags.

Supporters of the policy said classrooms should remain focused on education rather than political, cultural or personal causes. Opponents took a different view, arguing that Pride flags can communicate acceptance and support to LGBTQ+ students and that removing them could make some students feel excluded.

The board meeting included an extended public-comment period, with residents speaking from both perspectives. Some emphasized neutrality and equal treatment, while others described Pride symbols as important signals of belonging and safety.

The policy also establishes an exception process. Displays connected directly to curriculum, school-sanctioned events, clubs, teams or organizations can potentially receive approval through a written request.

Tullahoma is now among Tennessee school systems that have adopted restrictions on classroom flags. A broader proposal considered by Tennessee lawmakers in 2024 did not become law.

The vote reflects a larger national debate over what public schools should allow teachers to display and where the line should be drawn between classroom neutrality, personal expression and symbols intended to make students feel represented.

Newly released images show widespread destruction, with entire neighbourhoods appearing severely damaged or reduced to rubble following the Israeli offensive.

A Cornell fraternity member who reportedly sent a message saying “free p*ssy” in a group chat was pursuing a pre-med path. The contrast between preparing for a medical career and allegedly reducing women to objects has drawn renewed criticism and broader questions about attitudes toward women within fraternity culture.

The controversy has also fueled a larger discussion about how institutions respond when allegations of harassment, sexual assault or other misconduct involve students with promising academic or professional futures.

Critics argue that serious misconduct can sometimes be met with limited consequences, educational requirements or opportunities for rehabilitation, while people who report sexual violence may face intense scrutiny, disbelief and public judgment.

The debate extends beyond one fraternity or one message. It raises questions about whether schools and other institutions intervene early enough when warning signs of misogynistic behavior or sexual misconduct appear.

Advocates for survivors argue that women should not have to endure repeated incidents, produce extensive documentation, or wait until a case becomes widely publicized before their concerns receive serious attention.

At the center of the discussion is a broader question: how should institutions balance rehabilitation and a student’s future prospects with accountability when allegations of serious harm are involved?

🚨🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Wales is moving toward tougher rules on deliberate deception in political life, opening a wider debate over how elected officials should be held accountable for misleading statements.

The Senedd’s Standards of Conduct Committee has proposed stronger measures covering deliberate deception by Members of the Senedd and election candidates. The recommendations include clearer rules, greater investigative independence and mechanisms requiring politicians to correct deliberately misleading statements.

Under legislation passed in 2026, Welsh Ministers are required to introduce rules prohibiting false or misleading statements of fact made before or during an election when intended to affect the election result. The detailed offence is being developed through the electoral rules.

Supporters argue that stronger accountability could help address concerns about public trust and political misinformation. At the same time, Senedd committees have highlighted difficult questions about proving deliberate deception, protecting freedom of expression, avoiding politically motivated enforcement and ensuring fair legal procedures.

The debate in Wales is therefore about more than simply whether politicians should be truthful. It also involves determining what legally counts as deliberate deception, who should investigate it, what penalties should apply and how such rules can be enforced without creating new risks.

Could similar rules work in other democracies, or could they create new problems around political accountability and free expression?

Olivia Wilde publicly criticized Donald Trump in a strongly worded social media post shortly after participating in a protest outside Trump Tower in New York City.

Wilde joined actors Mark Ruffalo and Michael Moore, along with hundreds of protesters, at the demonstration, where participants called on Trump to condemn racism following the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The following day, Wilde shared a selfie on Instagram accompanied by an intensely critical message about Trump and his remarks from the previous evening. Her post quickly attracted attention and generated sharply divided reactions among followers.

Some supporters praised Wilde for expressing her political views so openly, while critics argued that the language was unnecessarily hostile and unproductive.

The incident was part of Wilde's broader history of publicly criticizing Trump. She had previously spoken to Page Six about his campaign rhetoric, describing what she viewed as xenophobic elements in his political messaging.

The Instagram post, originally published in 2017, has continued to resurface in discussions about celebrities who have publicly opposed Trump and his policies.

MIDTERMS: As voters consider the upcoming elections, the debate centers on the records of both parties — promises made by Republicans that critics say remain unfulfilled, compared with Democratic commitments that supporters say have been carried out.

Which party’s record on keeping its promises matters more to you?