Latest news with #Trump-like
The Age
3 days ago
- Health
- The Age
Brisbane news live: Queensland ‘needs an extra 350 mental health beds'
Latest posts Latest posts 7.13am Queensland hospital system needs an extra 350 mental health beds: psychiatrists By The imminent closure of Toowong Private Hospital will leave Queensland with a shortfall of 350 mental health beds, according to the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Loading Administrators called in to examine the family-owned hospital have decided to shut it down, and are now working with psychiatrists to ensure continuity of care for existing and prospective patients. Professor Brett Emmerson, chair of the college's Queensland branch, said there were not enough psychiatrists to run private hospitals, partly because the financial incentives were low and support was lacking. He said the federal government needed to increase Medicare rebates and ensure private health funds paid more, while also increasing training places for psychiatry. The state government also needed to invest in new beds, particularly when the existing beds are old and in such high demand. 'A viable private sector is essential in Queensland because we've got an already overstretched mental health system,' Emmerson said. He said the loss of 50 beds at Toowong would further reduce inpatient treatment options for private patients and increase pressure on the public system. 7.05am Cool and cloudy to close the week Another cool day is on the cards for Brisbane today, with the Bureau of Meteorology predicting a top of 23 degrees on a cloudy Thursday. And the forecast is for an even cooler Friday. Here's the seven-day outlook: 7.02am While you were sleeping Here's what's making news further afield this morning: Liberal leader Sussan Ley has broken from the Dutton era with a reshuffle that rejects Trump-like cuts, goes softer on immigration, and proactively reaches out to women in the cities. A Christian pastor who founded a drug rehab centre that once treated former game show host Andrew O'Keefe has been charged with faking reports about patients' drug use. Police dug into Erin Patterson's bank records, shopping history and phone records as part of their investigation into a lunch that killed three of her guests, a court has heard. Real estate listings companies such as the Murdoch-controlled REA Group are making off like bandits with claims that advertising rates are rising by 10 per cent or more a year. And the ACCC has started sniffing around. 6.35am The top stories this morning Good morning, and welcome to Brisbane Times' live news coverage for Thursday, May 29. Today we can expect a partly cloudy day and a top temperature of 23 degrees. In this morning's local headlines: There was an eerie sense of deja vu in the way the Maroons were blown off the park at Suncorp Stadium in the opening 40 minutes of the first State of Origin match last night, and it is a matter coach Billy Slater urgently needs to address. Here's how the players rated. The federal government is yet to recommit to its $3.44 billion contribution to Brisbane 2032 Olympic infrastructure after an inner-city arena was removed from the Games plan. And on his second visit to Brisbane, the international Paralympics chief says he has no intention of combining the Paralympics with the Olympics in 2032. More than 80 days after the Story Bridge's footpaths were closed, the saga has taken a dramatic turn, with police taking protesters to court over plans to close traffic lanes for a peak-hour march. When reporter Courtney Kruk recently found herself questioning a 4.8-star rating, she wondered whether we're all becoming too hooked on online reviews.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Health
- Sydney Morning Herald
Brisbane news live: Queensland ‘needs an extra 350 mental health beds'
Latest posts Latest posts 7.13am Queensland hospital system needs an extra 350 mental health beds: psychiatrists By The imminent closure of Toowong Private Hospital will leave Queensland with a shortfall of 350 mental health beds, according to the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Loading Administrators called in to examine the family-owned hospital have decided to shut it down, and are now working with psychiatrists to ensure continuity of care for existing and prospective patients. Professor Brett Emmerson, chair of the college's Queensland branch, said there were not enough psychiatrists to run private hospitals, partly because the financial incentives were low and support was lacking. He said the federal government needed to increase Medicare rebates and ensure private health funds paid more, while also increasing training places for psychiatry. The state government also needed to invest in new beds, particularly when the existing beds are old and in such high demand. 'A viable private sector is essential in Queensland because we've got an already overstretched mental health system,' Emmerson said. He said the loss of 50 beds at Toowong would further reduce inpatient treatment options for private patients and increase pressure on the public system. 7.05am Cool and cloudy to close the week Another cool day is on the cards for Brisbane today, with the Bureau of Meteorology predicting a top of 23 degrees on a cloudy Thursday. And the forecast is for an even cooler Friday. Here's the seven-day outlook: 7.02am While you were sleeping Here's what's making news further afield this morning: Liberal leader Sussan Ley has broken from the Dutton era with a reshuffle that rejects Trump-like cuts, goes softer on immigration, and proactively reaches out to women in the cities. A Christian pastor who founded a drug rehab centre that once treated former game show host Andrew O'Keefe has been charged with faking reports about patients' drug use. Police dug into Erin Patterson's bank records, shopping history and phone records as part of their investigation into a lunch that killed three of her guests, a court has heard. Real estate listings companies such as the Murdoch-controlled REA Group are making off like bandits with claims that advertising rates are rising by 10 per cent or more a year. And the ACCC has started sniffing around. 6.35am The top stories this morning Good morning, and welcome to Brisbane Times' live news coverage for Thursday, May 29. Today we can expect a partly cloudy day and a top temperature of 23 degrees. In this morning's local headlines: There was an eerie sense of deja vu in the way the Maroons were blown off the park at Suncorp Stadium in the opening 40 minutes of the first State of Origin match last night, and it is a matter coach Billy Slater urgently needs to address. Here's how the players rated. The federal government is yet to recommit to its $3.44 billion contribution to Brisbane 2032 Olympic infrastructure after an inner-city arena was removed from the Games plan. And on his second visit to Brisbane, the international Paralympics chief says he has no intention of combining the Paralympics with the Olympics in 2032. More than 80 days after the Story Bridge's footpaths were closed, the saga has taken a dramatic turn, with police taking protesters to court over plans to close traffic lanes for a peak-hour march. When reporter Courtney Kruk recently found herself questioning a 4.8-star rating, she wondered whether we're all becoming too hooked on online reviews.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Romanian populist who ran for president before election was annulled steps away from politics
Romanian populist Calin Georgescu announced his retirement from politics after being barred from running in the country's presidential election rerun this month. The decision comes after Georgescu ran for president late last year and emerged victorious in the first round of voting. However, a top Romanian court then annulled the result after allegations emerged of electoral violations and Russian interference. Georgescu was later banned from participating in this month's contest, which was won by pro-European Union candidate Nicusor Dan. "I choose to be a passive observer of public and social life," the 63-year-old Georgescu said in a video posted online late Monday. "I choose to remain outside any political party structure … I am not affiliated with any political group in any way." Georgescu – who ran as an independent in November – said he made his decision to take a step back following the conclusion of the presidential race, which for him indicated "the sovereignist movement has come to a close." Romania's Now-barred Presidential Frontrunner Claims He Is Facing Trump-like Charges "Even though this political chapter has ended, I am convinced that the values and ideals we fought for together remain steadfast," he added. "My dear ones, I have always said that we would make history, not politics." Read On The Fox News App In February, prosecutors opened criminal proceedings against Georgescu, accusing him of incitement to undermine the constitutional order, election campaign funding abuses, and founding or supporting fascist, racist, xenophobic, or antisemitic organizations, among other charges. On Tuesday, he was due to appear at the prosecutor's office in Bucharest. Despite what appeared to be a sprawling social media campaign promoting him, Georgescu had declared zero campaign spending in last year's contest. A Romanian court then made the unprecedented move to annul the election. "This December, Romania straight up canceled the results of a presidential election based on the flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbors," Vice President JD Vance said in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February. Georgescu Taken Into Custody After Jd Vance's Rebuke Of European Elections "Now, as I understand it, the argument was that Russian disinformation had infected the Romanian elections, but I'd ask my European friends to have some perspective. You can believe it's wrong for Russia to buy social media advertisements to influence your elections. We certainly do. You can condemn it on the world stage even. But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn't very strong to begin with," Vance added. Georgescu sparked controversy for describing Romanian fascist and nationalist leaders from the 1930s and 1940s as national heroes, according to the Associated Press. He has also praised Russian President Vladimir Putin in the past as "a man who loves his country" and has questioned Ukraine's statehood, but he claims not to be pro-Russian. Georgescu has argued the election was "canceled illegally and unconstitutionally," and after he was barred from the May rerun, he accused the authorities of "inventing evidence to justify the theft" of the elections. Earlier this year, thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bucharest in a show of support for Georgescu. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Original article source: Romanian populist who ran for president before election was annulled steps away from politics
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
America's Democracy Is Still Resilient
The first half-year of Donald Trump's second term is not even over, and the portents of democratic erosion are already stark. The president has moved to consolidate power, purging civil servants deemed disloyal, directing federal officials to flout adverse court rulings, and ordering the Justice Department to investigate political rivals. These moves have alarmed many Americans, who see their country's democracy as fundamentally in danger. Regrettably, their concerns aren't baseless. Even a long-established democracy can be undone—sometimes by a fairly elected leader. And yet, there is reason still to be hopeful; America is more resilient than many may fear. Unlike countries where democracy has recently unraveled, the United States displays at least six exceptional traits that are protecting it from the Trump-led assault: a robust network of advocacy groups, a powerful and independent judiciary, a constitutional system that makes executive preferences hard to entrench, a diverse and free private press, a federal system of government, and a uniquely speech-protective legal tradition. Some of these features may carry trade-offs in ordinary times, but they offer a clear advantage when democracy is under threat. If a Trump-like figure tried to purge nonloyalists, defy the courts, or use the government to punish rivals in places such as Poland, Brazil, and India, a popular resistance would be far less empowered. To start, America's network of public-interest advocacy groups is both larger and more resilient than those in countries where democracy has declined. Around the world, many governments impose outright bans on certain foreign-funded or 'extremist' groups, and subject other organizations to convoluted registration rules. Some of these requirements may be mere nuisances in strong democracies. But when a would-be autocrat takes office, his power comes preloaded with the bureaucratic tools he needs to silence his critics. In contrast, the strength of American civil society has a long history. The French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at early-19th-century America's penchant for civic activity, calling liberty of association 'a necessary guarantee' against tyranny. That tradition endures: The United States stands out for its high rates of citizen engagement and dense network of nonprofit organizations. The American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward, and Republicans for the Rule of Law are just a few prominent examples of institutions now challenging the administration in the courts of law and public opinion. And thanks in part to a line of Supreme Court cases dating back to at least 1886 and continuing through the Court's controversial recent decisions in Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, these organizations, like for-profit corporations, enjoy robust speech and associational rights. [Adrienne LaFrance: A ticking clock on American freedom] When these groups or other parties sue the government, U.S. courts have exceptional formal power to check a president's agenda. Some national courts elsewhere lack a Marbury v. Madison–style power to conclusively strike down unconstitutional acts of the legislature or executive. And even where that power exists, judicial review in much of Europe and Latin America is typically centralized in a single constitutional court. Aspiring autocrats therefore need only capture a single court to effectively remove judicial constraints. In some instances, they swiftly change the composition of the court by adjusting age limits or creating additional seats. Courts sometimes resist, as with the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, which, in 2015 and 2016, struck down measures the right-wing populist party had enacted to curb the court's power. But as the tribunal's judges reached the end of their nine-year terms, they were replaced by party loyalists, who then approved the president's reforms. Globally, scenarios like that aren't uncommon. Moreover, because most judges serve fixed, not life, terms, some who decide a government case may consider their later career prospects in weighing how to vote. The result: Constitutional courts are rarely far out of step with the party in power. The United States' court system is built differently: Hundreds of lower-court federal judges with lifetime tenure have both the formal power and the political will to invalidate executive actions nationwide. As such, even judges appointed by Republican presidents, including by Trump himself, commonly rule against him. Trump-appointed judges have recently prevented deportations under the Alien Enemies Act and halted the forced leave of 2,700 USAID employees. Judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have blocked Trump executive orders rescinding birthright citizenship. And all three of the Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices joined the full Court in upholding a lower court's order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from an El Salvadoran prison. Of course, courts can only do so much to enforce their rulings—especially against a defiant president. But even when courts can't compel compliance directly, their judgments can matter. By declaring that the government has crossed a constitutional line, courts arm advocacy groups with a powerful tool: a 'fire alarm' that can give dissenters the political capital they need to push out court-defying leaders. Another source of American institutional resilience is its aversion to big or rapid legal change. In normal times, this can stifle progress, but in unusual times, it can be a bulwark against backsliding. In some other countries, leaders have cemented their illiberal agendas through sweeping legislative changes and constitutional overhauls. Viktor Orbán and his parliamentary supermajority rewrote Hungary's constitution; Hugo Chávez began his presidency by pushing through an entirely new Venezuelan constitution; and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan transformed Turkey's parliamentary system into a presidential one through constitutional amendment. These moves fundamentally restructured their respective political orders. But U.S. constitutional reform is exceptionally difficult. And—in part because of the Senate's filibuster rule—even ordinary legislation faces high hurdles, particularly for many of the sweeping changes Trump envisions. That's why he's thus far attempted to implement his key initiatives primarily through more than 150 executive orders, rather than via legislation or constitutional amendment. This means that many of those policies can be reversed almost as easily as they were enacted. Indeed, America's aversion to legal change allowed President Joe Biden in 2021 to swiftly undo many Trump orders, on issues such as the Muslim travel ban, protecting federal workers, and energy policy. A future president could do the same. Next, America's media are independent and diversified. And at least since the Progressive era, they have repeatedly sounded the alarm on alleged government abuses. In many other places, silencing the press has proved too easy. In Vladimir Putin's Russia, media capture was swift: Starting in 2001, Putin's allies simply bought critical outlets and converted them to tools of state propaganda. In contrast, America's media organizations are so numerous and varied—even after years of consolidation and closures in the industry—that capturing them all would be nearly impossible. Federalism is the separation of powers between regional and national governments. It exists in fewer than 15 percent of countries today. Perhaps not coincidentally, those countries are on average freer and more democratic than the world at large. This system has always been quite popular in America—at least with the party out of power nationally. In the U.S., state governments can facilitate, or frustrate, immigration enforcement; state courts and prosecutors retain control of the bulk of criminal justice; and citizens may retain rights under state law even when their federal rights are diminished. But in most countries, where essentially all government authority—law enforcement, taxation, and constitutional—is concentrated in one national government, leaders find it far easier to run roughshod over the institutions meant to check executive power. [Listen: Autocracy in America] Finally, U.S. constitutional law and courts maintain a unique commitment to free speech. In places around the world—the Philippines, India, and Germany—governments have used libel laws to suppress criticism of national leaders and other dissent. But under America's speaker-friendly defamation law, public officials face substantial hurdles in suing or prosecuting critics into silence. Sarah Palin, Devin Nunes, and Donald Trump himself each recently learned this the hard way. And while many critics of the president may despair of recent settlements by ABC News and others, the defamation laws that protect such institutions are still in place and regularly enforced. To be clear, none of these observations either encourages complacency or diminishes the harm already caused by Trump's authoritarian moves. Many of the more vulnerable in American society—immigrants and civil servants, for instance—are especially and justifiably afraid for the future. The threats to American democracy and the rule of law are real, and they should be taken seriously. And yet, America's 237-year-old Constitution, private organizations, and public institutions are far better positioned than their foreign counterparts under similar threat. Many of these exceptional features of American society not only make our system easier to defend—they are also a big part of why it's so worth defending. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
5 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
America's Democracy Is Still Resilient
The first half-year of Donald Trump's second term is not even over, and the portents of democratic erosion are already stark. The president has moved to consolidate power, purging civil servants deemed disloyal, directing federal officials to flout adverse court rulings, and ordering the Justice Department to investigate political rivals. These moves have alarmed many Americans, who see their country's democracy as fundamentally in danger. Regrettably, their concerns aren't baseless. Even a long-established democracy can be undone—sometimes by a fairly elected leader. And yet, there is reason still to be hopeful; America is more resilient than many may fear. Unlike countries where democracy has recently unraveled, the United States displays at least six exceptional traits that are protecting it from the Trump-led assault: a robust network of advocacy groups, a powerful and independent judiciary, a constitutional system that makes executive preferences hard to entrench, a diverse and free private press, a federal system of government, and a uniquely speech-protective legal tradition. Some of these features may carry trade-offs in ordinary times, but they offer a clear advantage when democracy is under threat. If a Trump-like figure tried to purge nonloyalists, defy the courts, or use the government to punish rivals in places such as Poland, Brazil, and India, a popular resistance would be far less empowered. To start, America's network of public-interest advocacy groups is both larger and more resilient than those in countries where democracy has declined. Around the world, many governments impose outright bans on certain foreign-funded or 'extremist' groups, and subject other organizations to convoluted registration rules. Some of these requirements may be mere nuisances in strong democracies. But when a would-be autocrat takes office, his power comes preloaded with the bureaucratic tools he needs to silence his critics. In contrast, the strength of American civil society has a long history. The French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at early-19th-century America's penchant for civic activity, calling liberty of association 'a necessary guarantee' against tyranny. That tradition endures: The United States stands out for its high rates of citizen engagement and dense network of nonprofit organizations. The American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward, and Republicans for the Rule of Law are just a few prominent examples of institutions now challenging the administration in the courts of law and public opinion. And thanks in part to a line of Supreme Court cases dating back to at least 1886 and continuing through the Court's controversial recent decisions in Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, these organizations, like for-profit corporations, enjoy robust speech and associational rights. Adrienne LaFrance: A ticking clock on American freedom When these groups or other parties sue the government, U.S. courts have exceptional formal power to check a president's agenda. Some national courts elsewhere lack a Marbury v. Madison –style power to conclusively strike down unconstitutional acts of the legislature or executive. And even where that power exists, judicial review in much of Europe and Latin America is typically centralized in a single constitutional court. Aspiring autocrats therefore need only capture a single court to effectively remove judicial constraints. In some instances, they swiftly change the composition of the court by adjusting age limits or creating additional seats. Courts sometimes resist, as with the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, which, in 2015 and 2016, struck down measures the right-wing populist party had enacted to curb the court's power. But as the tribunal's judges reached the end of their nine-year terms, they were replaced by party loyalists, who then approved the president's reforms. Globally, scenarios like that aren't uncommon. Moreover, because most judges serve fixed, not life, terms, some who decide a government case may consider their later career prospects in weighing how to vote. The result: Constitutional courts are rarely far out of step with the party in power. The United States' court system is built differently: Hundreds of lower-court federal judges with lifetime tenure have both the formal power and the political will to invalidate executive actions nationwide. As such, even judges appointed by Republican presidents, including by Trump himself, commonly rule against him. Trump-appointed judges have recently prevented deportations under the Alien Enemies Act and halted the forced leave of 2,700 USAID employees. Judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have blocked Trump executive orders rescinding birthright citizenship. And all three of the Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices joined the full Court in upholding a lower court's order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from an El Salvadoran prison. Of course, courts can only do so much to enforce their rulings—especially against a defiant president. But even when courts can't compel compliance directly, their judgments can matter. By declaring that the government has crossed a constitutional line, courts arm advocacy groups with a powerful tool: a 'fire alarm' that can give dissenters the political capital they need to push out court-defying leaders. Another source of American institutional resilience is its aversion to big or rapid legal change. In normal times, this can stifle progress, but in unusual times, it can be a bulwark against backsliding. In some other countries, leaders have cemented their illiberal agendas through sweeping legislative changes and constitutional overhauls. Viktor Orbán and his parliamentary supermajority rewrote Hungary's constitution; Hugo Chávez began his presidency by pushing through an entirely new Venezuelan constitution; and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan transformed Turkey's parliamentary system into a presidential one through constitutional amendment. These moves fundamentally restructured their respective political orders. But U.S. constitutional reform is exceptionally difficult. And—in part because of the Senate's filibuster rule—even ordinary legislation faces high hurdles, particularly for many of the sweeping changes Trump envisions. That's why he's thus far attempted to implement his key initiatives primarily through more than 150 executive orders, rather than via legislation or constitutional amendment. This means that many of those policies can be reversed almost as easily as they were enacted. Indeed, America's aversion to legal change allowed President Joe Biden in 2021 to swiftly undo many Trump orders, on issues such as the Muslim travel ban, protecting federal workers, and energy policy. A future president could do the same. Next, America's media are independent and diversified. And at least since the Progressive era, they have repeatedly sounded the alarm on alleged government abuses. In many other places, silencing the press has proved too easy. In Vladimir Putin's Russia, media capture was swift: Starting in 2001, Putin's allies simply bought critical outlets and converted them to tools of state propaganda. In contrast, America's media organizations are so numerous and varied—even after years of consolidation and closures in the industry—that capturing them all would be nearly impossible. Federalism is the separation of powers between regional and national governments. It exists in fewer than 15 percent of countries today. Perhaps not coincidentally, those countries are on average freer and more democratic than the world at large. This system has always been quite popular in America—at least with the party out of power nationally. In the U.S., state governments can facilitate, or frustrate, immigration enforcement; state courts and prosecutors retain control of the bulk of criminal justice; and citizens may retain rights under state law even when their federal rights are diminished. But in most countries, where essentially all government authority—law enforcement, taxation, and constitutional—is concentrated in one national government, leaders find it far easier to run roughshod over the institutions meant to check executive power. Listen: Autocracy in America Finally, U.S. constitutional law and courts maintain a unique commitment to free speech. In places around the world— the Philippines, India, and Germany —governments have used libel laws to suppress criticism of national leaders and other dissent. But under America's speaker-friendly defamation law, public officials face substantial hurdles in suing or prosecuting critics into silence. Sarah Palin, Devin Nunes, and Donald Trump himself each recently learned this the hard way. And while many critics of the president may despair of recent settlements by ABC News and others, the defamation laws that protect such institutions are still in place and regularly enforced. To be clear, none of these observations either encourages complacency or diminishes the harm already caused by Trump's authoritarian moves. Many of the more vulnerable in American society—immigrants and civil servants, for instance—are especially and justifiably afraid for the future. The threats to American democracy and the rule of law are real, and they should be taken seriously. And yet, America's 237-year-old Constitution, private organizations, and public institutions are far better positioned than their foreign counterparts under similar threat. Many of these exceptional features of American society not only make our system easier to defend—they are also a big part of why it's so worth defending.
