logo
Share your thoughts with the Cincinnati City Hall and Hamilton County reporters

Share your thoughts with the Cincinnati City Hall and Hamilton County reporters

Yahoo2 days ago

Hello, Enquirer readers! Erin Glynn and Scott Wartman, here. We're the new Hamilton County and Cincinnati City Hall reporters, respectively. Well, not new exactly. We've both been with the organization for years. But we've got new beats.
We want to hear from you about what The Enquirer should focus on.
We'll be hosting meet-up events throughout Hamilton County this summer, including one we'll host together in Over-the-Rhine. Please feel free to drop by and share your thoughts, give us feedback or just say hello.
Friday, June 20.
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Coffee Emporium at 110 E. Central Parkway in Cincinnati.
Friday, June 27.
9 a.m. to noon.
Caravel Coffee at 3410 Glenmore Avenue in Cheviot.
Friday, July 11
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Lookout Joe's, 3181 Linwood Avenue in Mount Lookout.
Friday, July 18
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Deeper Roots at 9340 Montgomery Road, Suite 101, in Montgomery.
Friday, July 25
9 a.m. to noon.
BLOC Coffee Company, 801 Mt. Hope Avenue, East Price Hill.
We hope to see you there!
Regional politics reporter Erin Glynn can be reached at eglynn@enquirer.com, @ee_glynn on X or @eringlynn on Bluesky.
Cincinnati City Hall reporter Scott Wartman can be reached at swartman@enquirer.com, @scottwartman on X or @scottwartman.bsky.social‬ on Bluesky.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Enquirer politics reporters host meetups throughout Hamilton County

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '
Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '

Wall Street Journal

time20 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '

'Shoot a couple, the rest will go home,' said a meme circulating on Telegram channels of groups affiliated with the far-right Proud Boys. 'You just have to impale a few of them…' another local chapter posted. One disseminated an online gun tutorial, illustrating optimal shooting techniques with the caption: 'Riot season again!' Organizers in more than 2,000 cities are mobilizing for 'No Kings' rallies Saturday in opposition to President Trump and his military parade in Washington. Among those watching closely: extremist organizations on social media.

Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense
Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense

During his first term in office, President Trump pulled no punches in his personal attacks on federal judges with whom he disagreed. For instance, in February 2017, Trump called U.S. District Judge James L. Robart a 'so-called judge' after he temporarily stopped Trump's travel ban. In his second term, Trump has upped the ante. In his all-caps 2025 Memorial Day message, Trump denounced what he claimed were 'USA-HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY.' Presidents have long expressed their unhappiness with court decisions they disagree with, often in public. But President Trump takes a different approach from other presidents by personally attacking judges. This violates decades of norms of presidential respect for the judicial branch and has important consequences. Most notably, physical threats against federal judges reached an all-time high during Trump's first term. And things have only gotten worse. This year alone, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement agency charged with protecting federal judges, has investigated almost 400 threats to federal judges, with 162 judges facing threats between March 1 and April 14. Much of the recent intimidation comes in the form of 'pizza doxing,' in which federal judges receive unsolicited pizza deliveries to their homes. The recipient of these deliveries is listed as Daniel Anderl, the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed by a gunman who was targeting Salas. Recognizing this problem, Democratic members of Congress have introduced the Marshals Act, which would move the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch, overseen by a board that includes the chief justice of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts. Congress should pass this important legislation. By bringing the Marshals Service under the authority of the judicial branch, the nation can better protect the safety of federal judges. In addition, the act anticipates two very real possibilities, helping the nation avoid a potential constitutional crisis. First, the Trump administration has violated federal judicial orders relating to federal funding, the freedom of the press and the deportation of immigrants without due process of law. If the administration continues to ignore court decisions, the primary tool at the disposal of judges is to hold Trump administration lawyers in contempt of court. This usually begins with a fine, but can escalate to jail time if the administration continues to refuse to comply with court orders. Here's the problem: The entity charged with enforcing a criminal contempt of court order by making the arrest is the U.S. Marshals Service. Since the Marshals are under the control of the executive branch, President Trump could simply order the Marshals not to enforce the court order. This would render the judicial branch powerless over the Trump administration, setting off a constitutional crisis. By moving oversight of the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch, we can avoid this crisis since federal judges would surely enforce their own orders. Second, there are concerns that Trump may order the Marshals to stop protecting federal judges. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has removed protective details for federal officials. For example, in his second term, Trump pulled security details for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security advisor John Bolton and President Biden's adult children, Ashley and Hunter Biden. It is hardly a stretch to imagine Trump removing the Marshal's protection of federal judges. We can avoid this by putting the Marshals Service under the control of the judicial branch, which will no doubt ensure its judges get the protection they need. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in May, 'Judicial independence is crucial' to the American separation of powers system, which 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' In the current era, our system of checks and balances is deteriorating, and the judicial branch is arguably its weakest link. Passing the Marshals Act will strengthen judicial independence by allowing judges to render decisions free from concerns about intimidation or retribution from those who would do them harm. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the coauthor of 'The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Consumer sentiment rose in June for 1st time this year as inflation remains stayed tame
Consumer sentiment rose in June for 1st time this year as inflation remains stayed tame

Associated Press

time27 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Consumer sentiment rose in June for 1st time this year as inflation remains stayed tame

WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer sentiment increased in June for the first time in six months, the latest sign that Americans' views of the economy have improved as inflation has stayed tame and the Trump administration has reached a truce in its trade fight with China. The preliminary reading of the University of Michigan's closely watched consumer sentiment index, released Friday, jumped 16% to 60.5. The large increase followed steady drops that left the preliminary number last month at the second-lowest level in the nearly 75-year history of the survey. Consumer sentiment is still down 20% compared with December 2024. 'Consumers appear to have settled somewhat from the shock of the extremely high tariffs announced in April and the policy volatility seen in the weeks that followed,' Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a written statement. 'However, consumers still perceive wide-ranging downside risks to the economy.' Americans have largely taken a darker view of the economy's future after President Donald Trump unleashed a wide-ranging trade war, imposing steep tariffs on China, the European Union, and dozens of other countries. Yet in April Trump postponed a set of sweeping tariffs on about 60 nations and last month reached a temporary truce with China, after both sides had sharply ratcheted up tariffs on each other. U.S. duties remain elevated compared with historical levels, but so far they have not worsened overall inflation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store