Thurmond set a record opposing civil rights. A Black senator broke it.
Sen. Strom Thurmond took a long steam bath to dehydrate his body for what he was about to do on a sticky August night in 1957.
The Civil Rights Act was about to pass and Thurmond, a Democrat from South Carolina who was an unabashed segregationist, broke with the Southern Democratic ranks to stand alone and speak — for 24 hours and 18 minutes — against it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.
Axios
26 minutes ago
- Axios
Impeachment wars
Rep. Jasmine Crockett's mere mention of a possible impeachment inquiry into President Trump has touched off negative reactions from some colleagues. "I think she's going to turn off a lot more people than gain," a House Democrat told us. Why it matters: House Democratic leaders are staying neutral. But many Democrats are allergic to the word after they impeached Trump twice only for him to return to power with full control of the government. Crockett (D-Texas), asked in a local news interview if she would pursue impeachment if Democrats retook the House in 2026 and she became Oversight Committee chair, said she would "absolutely at least do an inquiry." The other three candidates for the ranking member job on Oversight, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), told us they wouldn't go that far. 👿 "Turning this ranker race into a proxy for impeachment is unhelpful and unfair to her colleagues," said a House Democrat who predicted Republicans will "try to motivate their base by saying that a Democratic majority will inevitably lead to impeachment." Crockett told us the term "impeachment inquiry" would stress to the public the "next level of gravity" of the subject matter — such as Trump's pardons for big money allies and the Qatari jet scandal. "A lot of times we as Democrats can overthink stuff," Crockett said. "A lot of people ... felt like [Oversight Committee chair] James Comer was an embarrassment. But at the end of the day, who won the House?" The bottom line: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries deferred to House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), whose panel, he said, "has jurisdiction over impeachment."
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Georgia Supreme Court partially invalidates state election rules
The Brief Georgia Supreme Court strikes down four state election rules, citing overreach by the State Election Board. Court rules organizational plaintiffs lack standing; individual voters Turner and Hall can challenge. Chief Justice highlights nondelegation doctrine to prevent legislative power transfer to agencies. ATLANTA - In a significant ruling, the Georgia Supreme Court has invalidated four of seven state election rules approved by the State Election Board before the November 2024 general election. Additionally, it found that two of the remaining rules could not be considered during the appeal. PREVIOUS STORY: Georgia Supreme Court considering if judge was right to block State Election Board rules The three-person Republican majority on the State Election Board, which was praised by then-former President Donald Trump during a rally in Atlanta in August, voted to adopt multiple rules in August and September 2024 over the objections of the board's lone Democrat and the nonpartisan chair. What we know The decision, which partially affirms, reverses, and vacates a previous ruling by the Fulton County Superior Court, sends the case back to the trial court for further review. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox had ruled in mid-October that 7 of the rules were "illegal, unconstitutional and void." The rules in question included requirements for county election boards to conduct "reasonable inquiries" before certifying election results, hand-counting ballots, daily reporting of vote totals, expanded access for poll watchers, photo ID requirements for absentee ballot drop-offs, and video surveillance of drop boxes. The Court found that only the video surveillance rule was valid, while the others exceeded the State Election Board's authority. The underlying lawsuit, brought by Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. and individuals Scot Turner and James Hall, argued that the 7 rules contradicted the state Election Code. RELATED STORY: Georgia election battle: Parties clash in court over controversial voting rules The State, along with the Republican National Committee, appealed, questioning the plaintiffs' legal standing. The court heard oral arguments in Cartersville on March 19. The Court concluded that organizational plaintiffs (Eternal Vigilance and Georgia State Conference of the NAACP) lacked standing, but individual voters Turner and Hall did have standing. What they're saying Chief Justice Nels S.D. Peterson, in a unanimous opinion, emphasized the importance of the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents the transfer of legislative power to administrative agencies. The Court's decision underscores the need for clear statutory authority in rule-making and highlights the ongoing debate over election integrity and governance in Georgia. Click to open this PDF in a new window.
