News on Youtube Jun 29 2018

Supreme Court of the United States Justice Kennedy's 5-Word Reason For Retiring, During

Trump Era Has Dems Fuming.

Just after announcing his retirement, vital swing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

revealed 5 remarkable words that explain why he chose to retire during President Donald

Trump's term — and liberals couldn't be more outraged.

In an era in which the opposition specializes in social justice, it's crucial to combat

such passive resistance with actual legal justice.

So, while the left is marching in the streets, wearing pink knit hats and chanting repetitive

vulgarities, conservatives are winning elections, passing bills, and implementing legislation.

On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy made an unexpected announcement that

he will decidedly retire under the current administration, handing President Donald Trump

the opportunity to pick his second judge to inevitably tip the SCOTUS scale to the right.

While addressing Justice Kennedy's announcement, President Trump not only honored the 30-year

SCOTUS judge, he also revealed the real reason the moderate justice chose to step down during

his term instead of that of any other president.

According to Trump, Kennedy feels at peace leaving the open seat for him to fill because

he wants the president to "carry on his great legacy," The Daily Caller reports.

Trump further explained that Kennedy has faith in him and trusts that he will uphold the

law.

"Great man.

And I'm very honored that he chose to do it during my term in office, because he felt

confident in me to make the right choice and carry on his great legacy, that's why he

did it," Trump said of Kennedy's retirement.

While speaking in North Dakota, Trump recognized that incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Kathryn

"Heidi" Heitkamp will likely deny any nomination he chooses, although he expressed

optimism that he will be able to convince the Senate regardless.

"And remember this, so we have a pick to come up, we have to pick a great one.

We have to pick one that is going to be there for 40 years, 45 years.

We need intellect, we need so many things.

There are so many elements, go into the making of a great justice of the Supreme Court, you

gotta hit every one of them.

Heidi will vote no to any pick we make for the Supreme Court," Trump continued.

However, Heitkamp did accept Trump's SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch in 2017, showcasing the

president's ability to gain support from both sides of the political aisle.

Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed in just over 2 months, giving Democrats a legitimate

reason to worry about Trump's promise to "immediately" begin searching for a replacement

for Kennedy ahead of the November elections.

His pick will undoubtedly sway the Supreme Court toward conservatism, as the remaining

8 justices are evenly politically split.

Expectedly, leftists are lamenting the world's end, arguing that a conservative Supreme Court

will result in Nazi-like legislation, a phobia they justify in their trivializing comparison

of President Trump to Hitler.

Senator Chuck Schumer incited panic in the left, equating the restoration of conservative

American values to the abolition of human rights, The Washington Post reports.

"Nothing less than the fate of our health-care system, reproductive rights for women and

countless other protections for middle-class Americans are at stake," Senate Minority

Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a floor speech, calling the Kennedy vacancy

the "most important . . . in at least a generation."

"Millions of people are just months away from determining the senators who should vote

to confirm or reject the president's nominee, and their voices deserve to be heard now,

as Leader McConnell thought they should deserve to be heard then," Schumer said.

"Anything but that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy."

For far too long, the left has wielded the Supreme Court as a weapon against individual

liberties, reducing our constitutional rights to rubble in order to satisfy their desire

to topple Western values.

Now that Trump has the opportunity to swing the Supreme Court, major issues such as abortion,

illegal immigration, LGBTQ privileges, and gun control are in danger of a much needed

legal overhaul.

No longer will the fringe minority be allowed to bully the benevolent majority.

Social justice will soon take a back seat to legal justice.

What do you think about this?

Please share this news and scroll down to Comment below and don't forget to subscribe

top stories today.

For more infomation >> Supreme Court of the United States Justice Kennedy's 5 Word Reason For Retiring, During Trump Era Ha - Duration: 4:34.

-------------------------------------------

NC among 17 states suing Trump administration over separation of families - Duration: 2:06.

For more infomation >> NC among 17 states suing Trump administration over separation of families - Duration: 2:06.

-------------------------------------------

Australia's approach to both China and the United States needs to change, says Bob Carr - Duration: 10:13.

 Amid the escalating threat of a large-scale trade war between the United States and China, former foreign minister Bob Carr has warned that Australia's approach to both major powers needs to change

 In his new memoir, Run For Your Life, Mr Carr warns that we need to consider the "big disturbing idea" that if conflict was to arise between the US and China, following the US into war by default "might be a danger to Australian security, not a guarantor of it"

 Speaking with news.com.au, Mr Carr warned us not to underestimate the gravity of a potential flare-up between China and the US, saying it may lead to a "shooting war"

 "The greatest threat Australia faces is the prospect that a trade war between America and China could become a Cold War," he said

"And that Cold War could flare into a shooting war as a result of a misjudgment." For several months, a potentially devastating trade war has been bubbling between the two powers, with some arguing the impacts could be worse than the global financial crisis of 2009

 But Mr Carr believes Australia's devotion to a declining US, combined with our hostile stance towards China in the past 18 months, could ultimately work against us

 He argues a "China panic campaign" has dominated the public conversation at the expense of a healthy diplomatic relationship

 At the same time, he said he "questions the wisdom of throwing everything behind the bet that American power will continue to have force in the world"

 CHINA 'TO OVERTAKE' US AS WORLD'S LEADING POWER  According to the Lowy Institute's Asia Power Index, which ranks 25 countries and territories by their power, China is set to surpass the US by 2030, almost doubling the latter's economy

 The rising superpower has already exceeded the US in terms of diplomatic influence, economic relationships and geoeconomic security

 At the same time, the relationship between Australia and China has been soured by a back-and-forth exchange of vague threats, reports of a "diplomatic deep freeze", and ongoing accusations of China's attempts to influence and interfere in Australian politics — which Mr Carr described as a "panic campaign sailing way beyond any evidentiary base"

 He attributed people's fear of the rising superpower to three points. "The ultimate panic is China's unmistakeable economic rise," he said

"There was no hard or soft landing. The realisation of this has shocked a lot of people

" He also attributed people's concerns to Beijing's assertiveness in the South China Sea, having recently noted our options beyond "vigorous diplomatic assertion" are limited there

 "I think what's happening to America is the third ingredient. The most passionately pro-American people in our think tank and our security establishments are just shocked by the sudden possibility of American political deadlock and decline

This has encouraged a panicked response to China's rise." Last month, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop hit out at Mr Carr, accusing him of acting against the national interest over claims he used Labor MPs to ask questions about the author of a top-secret report on Chinese interference

 "I find it extraordinary that senators would have their questions drafted by a former Labor member who has clearly a different view of the national interest than I would think the opposition here in Canberra does," Ms Bishop told Fairfax Media

 "It is a matter for Bob Carr to answer what contractual or financial arrangements he has with organisations

" But Mr Carr rejected any claims he's advocating for Australia to embrace China any more than it did under the former Abbott government

 "(The relationship) can easily be improved. They've allowed a couple of speeches to be written by members of the anti-China Taliban — fundamentalists and zealots," he told news

com.au. "Those people have been given a bit of a free run for 18 months. It's now time to put the professional diplomats back in charge

" A recent Lowy Institute poll also found that, while the majority of Australians remain concerned by Chinese investment, the overwhelming majority also see China as more of an economic partner (82 per cent) than a military threat (12 per cent)

 So what's the solution? "Our position should be a fully engaged diplomacy with China," Mr Carr said

"We're the only American ally that can't get a meeting with Chinese leadership." Last month, Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-in met as a summit in Tokyo

 "Why can't we be part of that sort of dialogue, while strongly maintaining our position on the South China Sea? If I was Foreign Minister today, the language on the South China Sea would be the same as Julie Bishop's, because that's the Australian position

 "A fully-engaged diplomacy which gives the opportunity to influence Chinese behaviour … you can't do it unless you're engaged with them

At the present time, we're handicapped by a more adversarial stance on China than any other US ally

" Some defence experts news.com.au has spoken to have argued that Australia's position will be to toe the line between its two relationships for as long as possible, but under pressure, we'd ultimately take America's side

 But Mr Carr says the notion that Australia shouldn't have to "choose" between the US and China, he suggests, is not a pipe dream, but a very real possibility if we play our cards right

 "We should continue saying to China what we've done since Whitlam, letting the Chinese know we are part of the US alliance system and the alliance is not directed at them," he notes

"But we should also let the Americans know that our alliance commitment with them does not preclude us from a positive and pragmatic policy towards China

 "It's easy to be an ally of the US and a serious partner of China as it continues to make its transition, the most vast and most concentrated in human history, to being ultimately a rich country and vastly more powerful in the world

 "It just takes diplomacy, fuelled by confidence." Run For Your Life will be published by Melbourne University Publishing on July 2

 'Vigorous diplomatic assertion' Australia's only option in South China Sea: Carr2:16 Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr has told Sky News he backs the Australian government's tough rhetoric towards China

Mr Carr says he doesn't see what options Australia has remaining besides a 'vigorous diplomatic assertion,' since conflict with China is untenable

He says the US is in a similar situation and cannot do much to rectify the situation apart from ramping up freedom of navigation controls

His comments follow the deployment of Chinese missiles to disputed South China Sea islands, which has been censured by US Defence Secretary James Mattis and backed by Defence Minister Marise Payne

June 3rd 2018a month ago/display/newscorpaustralia.com/Web/NewsNetwork/Network News/World/

For more infomation >> Australia's approach to both China and the United States needs to change, says Bob Carr - Duration: 10:13.

-------------------------------------------

17 Democratic states sue Trump administration over family separations - Duration: 4:00.

Seventeen states, including Washington, New York and California, sued President Donald Trump's administration Tuesday in an effort to force officials to reunite migrant families who have been separated at the U

S.-Mexico border.The states, all of which are led by Democratic attorneys general, joined Washington, D

C.,in filing the lawsuit in U.S.District Court in Seattle.It's the first legal challenge by states over the practice

'The administration's practice of separating families is cruel, plain and simple,' New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said in an emailed statement

'Every day, it seems like the administration is issuing new, contradictory policies and relying on new, contradictory justifications

But we can't forget: the lives of real people hang in the balance.' Immigration authorities have separated about 2,300 children from their parents in recent weeks, sparking global outrage as images and recordings of weeping children emerged

Many parents are in custody thousands of miles from their children, whom they have not been able to see and have rarely spoken to for a month or more

After falsely blaming Democrats for the separations and insisting that only Congress could fix the issue, the president last week issued an executive order designed to end the practice under his 'zero tolerance' policy, which prosecutes adults who come to the U

S.illegally.But the states say his order is riddled with caveats and fails to reunite parents and children who have already been torn apart

They accuse the administration of denying the parents and children due process; denying the immigrants, many of whom are fleeing gang violence in Central America, their right to seek asylum; and being arbitrary in applying the policy

A U.S.judge in San Diego already is considering whether to issue a nationwide injunction sought by the American Civil Liberties Union that would order the administration to reunite the separated children with their parents

A Seattle-based immigrant rights group sued Monday on behalf of detained asylum-seekers in Washington state who have been separated from their children

The states that sued are Massachusetts, California, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington