Latest news with #Democrat-dominated
New York Post
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Schwarzenegger taunts Newsom with message targeting Dem redistricting push
Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pumping up for a new fight. The longtime Hollywood action star, the last Republican governor in Democrat-dominated California, says he's mobilizing to oppose the push by current Gov. Gavin Newsom to temporarily scrap the state's nonpartisan redistricting commission. 'I'm getting ready for the gerrymandering battle,' Schwarzenegger wrote in a social media post Friday, which included a photo of the former professional bodybuilding champion lifting weights. Schwarzenegger, who rose to worldwide fame as the star of the film 'The Terminator' four decades ago, wore a T-shirt in the photo that said 'terminate gerrymandering.' The social media post by Schwarzenegger comes as Democratic leaders in the Democrat- dominated California legislature are moving forward with new proposed congressional district maps that would create up to five more blue-leaning US House seats in the nation's most populous state. Newsom on Thursday teamed up in Los Angeles with congressional Democrats and legislative leaders in the heavily blue state to unveil their redistricting playbook. 4 Arnold Schwarzenegger wears a 'F*** The Politicians. Terminate Gerrymandering' shirt while working out. Arnold Schwarzenegger/X Newsom and the Democrats are aiming to counter the ongoing effort by President Donald Trump and Republicans to create up to five GOP-friendly congressional districts in red state Texas at the expense of Democrat-controlled seats. 'Today is liberation day in the state of California,' Newsom said. 'Donald Trump, you have poked the bear, and we will punch back.' Newsom vowed to 'meet fire with fire' with his push for a rare — but not unheard of — mid-decade redistricting. 4 California Gov. Gavin Newsom embraces former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at a news conference in Los Angeles, Calif. on March 22, 2024. Los Angeles Times via Getty Imag The Republican push in Texas, which comes at Trump's urging, is part of a broader effort by the GOP across the country to pad its razor-thin House majority to keep control of the chamber in the 2026 midterms, when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats. Trump and his political team are aiming to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House, when Democrats stormed back to grab the House majority in the 2018 midterms. While the Republican push in Texas to upend the current congressional maps doesn't face constitutional constraints, Newsom's path in California is much more complicated. The governor is pushing to hold a special election this year to get voter approval to undo the constitutional amendments that created the nonpartisan redistricting commission. A two-thirds majority vote in the Democrat-dominated California legislature as early as next week would be needed to hold the referendum. Democratic Party leaders are confident they'll have the votes to push the constitutional amendment and the new proposed congressional maps through the legislature. 'Here we are in open and plain sight before one vote is cast in the 2026 midterm election, and here [Trump] is once again trying to rig the system,' Newsom charged. Newsom said his plan is 'not complicated. We're doing this in reaction to a president of the United States that called a sitting governor in the state of Texas and said, 'Find me five seats.' We're doing it in reaction to that act.' 4 The proposed Congressional district map of California. California State Assembly The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) said 'Newsom's made it clear: he'll shred California's Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought, and power is the only priority.' But Newsom defended his actions, saying 'we're working through a very transparent, temporary and public process. We're putting the maps on the ballot and putting the power to the people.' Thursday's appearance by Newsom, considered a likely contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, also served as a fundraising kickoff to raise massive amounts of campaign cash needed to sell the redistricting push statewide in California. The nonpartisan redistricting commission, created over 15 years ago, remains popular among most Californians, according to public opinion polling. That's why Newsom and California Democratic lawmakers are promising not to scrap the commission entirely, but rather replace it temporarily by the legislature for the next three election cycles. 'We will affirm our commitment to the state independent redistricting after the 2030 census, but we are asking the voters for their consent to do midterm redistricting,' Newsom said. Their efforts are opposed by a number of people supportive of the nonpartisan commission. 4 Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally about redistricting at the Democracy Center, Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles on Aug. 14, 2025. Getty Images Among the most visible members is likely to be Schwarzenegger. 'He calls gerrymandering evil, and he means that. He thinks it's truly evil for politicians to take power from people,' Schwarzenegger spokesperson Daniel Ketchell told Politico earlier this month. 'He's opposed to what Texas is doing, and he's opposed to the idea that California would race to the bottom to do the same thing.' Schwarzenegger, during his tenure as governor, had a starring role in the passage of constitutional amendments in California in 2008 and 2010 that took the power to draw state legislative and congressional districts away from politicians and placed it in the hands of an independent commission. 'Most people don't really think about an independent commission much, one way or another. And that's both an opportunity and a challenge for Newsom,' Jack Pitney, an American politics professor at California's Claremont McKenna College, told Fox News. 'It's going to take a lot of effort and money to energize Democrats and motivate them to show up at the polls,' Pitney said, adding Newsom's effort 'is all about motivating people who don't like Trump.' Fox News' Lee Ross contributed to this report
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What level of immigration enforcement will Democrats actually accept?
Last week, the streets of Los Angeles burned over immigration enforcement. The incendiary exchange between California's political class and federal immigration authorities unfolded as America watched. But I have just one question for my friends on the political left: What level of immigration law enforcement is actually acceptable? This isn't a rhetorical jab. It's a genuine inquiry into where the line resides. At what point does enforcing duly enacted federal law become illegitimate in the eyes of those who advocate for sanctuary city policies and decry any interior enforcement as a moral outrage? Let's be clear about what federal law permits. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers don't just have the right to operate in all 50 states; they have a legal obligation to do so. More: ICE says nearly 200 immigrants arrested in Nashville during recent operations The Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically in section 8 U.S.C. § 1357, grants federal immigration officers the authority to interrogate and arrest non-citizens without a warrant if they have 'reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.' This isn't some obscure, rarely used statute. It's the bedrock of federal immigration enforcement. The "probable cause" standard here is consistent with what we expect from other law enforcement agencies. We can and should demand that ICE agents meet this standard, but we cannot pretend it doesn't exist. Consider the typical scenario that often gets labeled a "raid." It's not, as often portrayed, a random sweep of a neighborhood. These are enforcement actions targeted at specific employers based on evidence. In fact, worksite enforcement is a regular part of ICE operations, and it isn't limited to Democrat-dominated states. The event that started the conflagration in Los Angeles on June 6 was a basic law enforcement engagement at an apparel manufacturing business. This brings us back to the central question. If federal agents have established probable cause that a business is a hub of illegal employment, at what point in that process is it acceptable for protestors to throw rocks at officers? When is the appropriate time to set a self-driving Waymo vehicle ablaze? Is there a particular brand of sneakers that's fair game for looting when you're upset about immigration enforcement? All this boorish behavior simply demonstrates the need for even more law enforcement. The performative outrage from politicians like Gov. Gavin Newsom in his exchanges with ICE Director Tom Homan is a distraction. The issue isn't about tough talk; it's about the consistent and safe application of the law. States cannot create zones where federal law is null and void, no matter what they label them. More: Inside the volunteer group patrolling Nashville to look for ICE activity The Supreme Court has affirmed states do not have to assist in federal enforcement. They also cannot actively obstruct it. If Democrats in California and elsewhere fundamentally oppose the current immigration laws, the path to changing them runs through Washington, D.C., not through angry mobs on the streets of Los Angeles. Win a presidential election, hold majorities in Congress, and you can rewrite the nation's immigration statutes. Just don't look at the polling. As it turns out, Americans aren't into lawlessness. If Democratic leaders can't articulate a vision for how federal immigration laws can be consistently and peacefully enforced, then their position isn't that different from the masked protestor waving a foreign flag on the hood of a burning car. They might be wearing suits in positions of power, but their contempt for the rule of law is exactly the same. USA TODAY Network Tennessee Columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney raising four boys in Nolensville, Tennessee, with his particularly patient wife, Justine. Direct outrage or agreement to or @DCameronSmith on Twitter. Agree or disagree? Send a letter to the editor to letters@ This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Democrats at ICE protests show contempt for federal law | Opinion
The Hill
16-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal from New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear from a faith-based pregnancy center in New Jersey challenging a state investigation into whether it misled people into thinking its services included referrals for abortion. The justices agreed to consider an appeal from First Choice Women's Resource Centers, which wants to block a 2023 subpoena from Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin seeking information about donors, advertisements and medical personnel. It has not yet been served. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case nearly three years after overturning abortion as a nationwide right. Since then, most Republican-controlled states have started enforcing new bans or restrictions, and most Democrat-dominated ones have sought to protect abortion access. Attorneys for First Choice Women's Resource Centers had described the organization as a 'faith-based, pro-life pregnancy center.' Pregnancy centers generally try to steer women facing an unwanted pregnancy away from choosing an abortion. The group challenged the subpoena in federal court, but a judge found that the case wasn't yet far enough along to weigh in. An appeals court agreed. First Choice Women's Resource Centers appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the push for donor information had chilled its First Amendment rights. 'State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents,' its lawyers wrote. 'Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands.' Meanwhile, Platkin has sought to enforce the subpoena in state court, but the judge there has so far refused the state's push to require the group to turn over documents and told the two sides to negotiate instead. The state had asked the justices to pass on the case, saying it doesn't present the kind of significant lower-court controversy that requires the justices to step in. 'The decision below is correct and does not have the impacts petitioner alleges,' state attorneys wrote. The attorney general's office did not immediately return a message seeking comment. The court will hear arguments in the case in the fall.
Yahoo
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal from New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear from a faith-based pregnancy center in New Jersey challenging a state investigation into whether it misled people into thinking its services included referrals for abortion. The justices agreed to consider an appeal from First Choice Women's Resource Centers, which wants to block a 2023 subpoena from Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin seeking information about donors, advertisements and medical personnel. It has not yet been served. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case nearly three years after overturning abortion as a nationwide right. Since then, most Republican-controlled states have started enforcing new bans or restrictions, and most Democrat-dominated ones have sought to protect abortion access. Attorneys for First Choice Women's Resource Centers had described the organization as a 'faith-based, pro-life pregnancy center.' Pregnancy centers generally try to steer women facing an unwanted pregnancy away from choosing an abortion. The group challenged the subpoena in federal court, but a judge found that the case wasn't yet far enough along to weigh in. An appeals court agreed. First Choice Women's Resource Centers appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the push for donor information had chilled its First Amendment rights. 'State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents," its lawyers wrote. 'Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands.' Meanwhile, Platkin has sought to enforce the subpoena in state court, but the judge there has so far refused the state's push to require the group to turn over documents and told the two sides to negotiate instead. The state had asked the justices to pass on the case, saying it doesn't present the kind of significant lower-court controversy that requires the justices to step in. 'The decision below is correct and does not have the impacts petitioner alleges,' state attorneys wrote. The attorney general's office did not immediately return a message seeking comment. The court will hear arguments in the case in the fall. ___ Associated Press writer Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this story. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press
Miami Herald
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Gavin Newsom should get out of Trump's way in LA
'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions.' So says California Gov. Gavin Newsom after an X poster sent him video of his constituents setting police cars on fire and throwing rocks. What Donald Trump is doing is enforcing the law. By sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents into Los Angeles to arrest undocumented immigrants and then sending in the National Guard to restore order after riots erupted, Trump is doing nothing more than his job, something the Biden administration and Newsom himself largely abdicated. Joe Biden's border policies – somewhere between an open invitation and abject surrender before a late-term reversal – allowed waves of unwelcome migrants to enter the United States, millions of them, making it necessary for a tough surge of enforcement around the country to restore some respect for our borders. Gavin Newsom's sanctuary state policies made sure that plenty of that enforcement would need to take place in California. If Newsom didn't want to see flash bang grenades deployed in Los Angeles restaurant kitchens and heavily armed federal agents in donut shops and Home Depots, maybe he shouldn't have spent billions of taxpayer dollars making California a more welcoming home for people who broke the law. The biggest move he made was to spend the state into a deficit offering Medical (California's version of Medicaid) to those without legal status. It is a decision he has tried to partially reverse as the budget impact became clear. More appalling was a law passed by California's Democrat-dominated legislature to make undocumented immigrants eligible for six-figure housing down payment assistance or making poor citizens complete with the undocumented for scarce work-study opportunities at state universities and community colleges. You know, the places of education where citizens of El Salvador and Mexico already got cheaper tuition than those interloper immigrants from Missouri or Idaho. Newsom says 'Commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the Governor of that state is illegal and immoral.' That's not exactly right. It wasn't 'illegal and immoral' for Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson to use commandeered National Guard units to enforce civil rights laws in 1965. And it isn't now for the threat to American sovereignty caused by Biden's feckless border policy and the violent reaction to efforts to rectify it, dangers just as grave as Alabama civil rights scofflaws were a half century ago. In both cases, protests threatened to derail the enforcement of federal law. And while Newsom says the National Guard is an unneeded provocation, the LA police chief has had second thoughts. 'Looking at the violence today, I think we've got to make a reassessment,' Jim McDonnell, told The New York Times. He's right. The Guard hasn't engaged with protestors yet, but they are an important backstop to the police who face not only local riots but the threat that others with broader anti-American agendas will come to take advantage of the chaos caused by the original timorous response from California law enforcement. It is unclear what message rioters were sending by setting multiple Waymo taxis on fire in downtown LA, but it is surely clear that unmanned transportation isn't exactly a symbol of Trump administration overreach. Maybe the violent protestors have more in mind than a confrontation over immigration enforcement. That was certainly the case in the violent riots over the murder of George Floyd that killed nine and cost billions. I have my problems with the Trump approach to immigration. Afghan patriots who served our military in trying to tame that terrorist-infested land deserve our thanks, not the boot. The U.S. has a long history of welcoming those who flee communism. Why that doesn't apply to Venezuelans, I don't know. Kicking out either group seems kinda dumb. And the policy of refusing to allow China to send full-fair paying students to our schools to subsidize American students' education doesn't make much fiscal sense to me. But if America is to return to its roots as a land built on exploiting the hard work, innovations and and entrepreneurialism of wave after wave of migrants, we have to have a reckoning over the lawlessness of the Biden years. It might get ugly in some cases, but in trying his best to kick out undocumented immigrants, Trump is only doing what we elected him for. Gavin Newsom should get out of the way.
