Aggregator

Singer allegedly pushed Luann de Lesseps away from the mic while singing the national anthem at Gay Polo.

NY Post readers discuss a shooting targeting President Trump and officials at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Music streamer Deezer allows users to filter out AI music, so why does Spotify not offer the same?

In May 2011, 6-year-old Timmothy Pitzen vanished after his mother picked him up from school claiming a “family emergency” — and what followed reads like something out of a nightmare. Days later, the mother was found dead in a motel room, leaving behind a chilling note saying the boy was “safe” but would “never be...

The son of an NFL legend is headed to the Chiefs Kingdom. 

With Steve Kerr’s future with the Warriors still up in the air, could the outspoken coach finally make the long speculated move from the basketball gymnasium to the political arena? Despite his frequent use of his platform to weigh in on current events and a personal connection to gun reform, Kerr, 60, has said in...

“I kinda like it,” one Reddit user responded to news of an attack on Sam Altman. “I don’t feel any semblance of sympathy for him.”

WNBA star Paige Bueckers is putting all the questions about her relationship with Azzi Fudd to rest.

FBI Director Kash Patel was the lone Trump administration official explicitly spared on suspected WHCD gunman's hit list – apparently because of his law-enforcement role, sources told The Post. 

A San Diego mercenary unit tortured and killed an American citizen after stealing his cash in Yemen, a bombshell lawsuit has claimed. The sister of 25-year-old Fresno man, Abdulmalek Anwar Alsanabani, is suing the mercenary group, called ‘Spear’, claiming they murdered her brother. Zena Alsanabani claims she has “sustained serious emotional and psychological injuries, including...

Margo Catsimatidis spoke to The Post's Cindy Adams about how she got her start in New York.

“Donald Trump looked presidential on Saturday night” after the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents Dinner, applauds The Wall Street Journal’s Faith Bottum.

Patrick Witty, the chief photo editor at the White House, explained the men were “watching surveillance footage of the shooter” when the “historic photo” was taken. 

Earth Justice and the Sierra Club, which sued Gov. Kathy Hochul's administration for failing to implement the state's controversial climate change law, -- -- are banking millions from well-heeled donors.

Iran’s latest “peace” offer — which President Donald Trump would be nuts to consider — continues the Islamic Republic’s history of playing from a posture of strength when the regime is actually in a state of near-collapse.

The Wolves enter Game 5 looking to close things out, but significant injuries to their starting backcourt leave them as 10.5-point underdogs.

"Let's Get Ruthless": Bulwark's Bill Kristol Suggests Illiberal Means Are Needed To Save Liberal Democracy

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Let’s get ruthless.”

Those words are, unfortunately, nothing new in this age of rage.

In just the last few weeks, various liberal pundits and politicians have been calling for radical and even violent action.

Even comedian Margaret Cho publicly declared this week that “we need a feral, bloodthirsty, violent Democrat.”

However, these words were reposted by Bill Kristol, the founder of the Weekly Standard and the current editor-in-chief of The Bulwark. Kristol was a leading conservative figure in the Republican Party.

Kristol left the Republican Party and is now a vehemently anti-Trump writer. There are certainly good-faith reasons why some conservatives have broken with Trump on a variety of issues.

However, the original column was endorsing the Democratic plan to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority to force through a slew of political changes in the country.

Various Democrats have been pledging to not only impeach Trump (and a long list of other figures), but to pack the Supreme Court as soon as they regain power.

James Carville declared, “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F— it. Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”

This Nike School of Constitutional Law is catching on with a wide array of pundits and professors. Just do it.

Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”

Years ago, I wrote an academic piece on the possible expansion of the Supreme Court, but there is a world of difference between that and a court-packing plan. Under my proposal, the court’s expansion would take almost two decades to ensure that no president could pack the court.

It was not just the company that Kristol is keeping on the issue, or his endorsement of the long-anathema concept of court packing, but also his rationale for the move. Kristol cited the successful Democratic gerrymandering efforts in California and Virginia as triumphs that should now propel the left to pack the Court.

Kristol reposted the call for court packing from his colleague Jonathan Last: “Expanding the Supreme Court is no different from redistricting in California and Virginia,” he said. “It is a proportionate response to Republican attempts to degrade liberal democracy and move America toward a post-liberal order.”

Praising governors Gavin Newsom and Abigail Spanberger for their “ruthless” leadership in response to Republican gerrymandering, Kristol insisted that Democrats must meet “force with force” and must now pack the Supreme Court. Being ruthless, he argues, is the “only road to preserving liberal democracy.”

There is, of course, a considerable difference between altering political districts and packing the courts. Political gerrymandering has been around since the earliest days of the Republic.

The courts are not the same political fungible units. Indeed, the favorite term on the left is “illiberal democracy” to refer to democratic systems used to curtail rights and weaken checks and balances. Yet this illiberal means is being cited by Kristol as essential to save liberal democracy.

Liberal justices have spoken out against these calls for court packing.

The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it would destroy the continuity and cohesion of the court.

She added, “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

The political districts are precisely that: political. They are part of the two political branches in a tripartite system. It is the courts that keep these political branches within their proper constitutional orbits.

There was, of course, no movement to pack the court when a series of liberal majorities rewrote major areas of constitutional law in the 1960s and 1970s. These demands from figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren were only heard when the court began to rule against their chosen outcomes.

Warren explained that the court had to be packed to bring its rulings in line with “widely held public opinion.”

Of course, Article III was designed precisely to blunt such pressures to rule according to “widely held public opinion.” The Supreme Court is a counter-majoritarian body that was created to protect rights against the passions or demands of the majority.

As I discuss in my book, “Rage and the Republic,” the founders sought to avoid “democratic despotism” and “mobocracy” by creating barriers to direct democratic powers. The Supreme Court is essential as a bulwark against such impulse politics. Those pushing for an instant liberal majority would convert the court into the type of partisan judicial bodies seen in states like Wisconsin where jurists are selected to robotically vote for party priorities.

There is a reason why “ruthless” was not an attribute cited by anyone in the constitutional convention to be fostered in our Republic. On the contrary, the system is designed to temper ruthless passions for reasoned debate.

The court itself may be the ultimate test of the lingering capacity for reason among our citizens. Of course, we can be ruthless and tear down our institutions on the 250th anniversary of our Republic.

No democratic system is ever immune from self-inflicted wounds. That is why Benjamin Franklin reminded us that this remains our Republic if we can keep it. This year, we can celebrate that Republic, or we can ruthlessly destroy it in a fit of blind rage.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/27/2026 - 18:25

A courtroom clash unfolding this week in which Elon Musk accuses OpenAI leader Sam Altman and other top brass of straying from the organization’s original purpose has already aired dirty laundry between Silicon Valley giants. Now, a who’s who list of artificial intelligence big wigs who might testify could illustrate even further the bitter battle...

The woman fell 50 feet from the outside edge of the Upper Terminal Drive at the Indianapolis International Airport around 12:15 p.m. Saturday..

A maniac behind the wheel of a white Mercedes Sprinter van randomly attacked five strangers – including three senior citizens – in an unprovoked Queens rampage Sunday afternoon, police said.