Mysterious dinosaur remains discovered in Colorado are from an adult triceratops, experts confirm

The fossilized remains of a dinosaur that was discovered at a Colorado construction site last month have been identified as a triceratops.
Load more
Read full article on:
College football stars push for regular season as cancellations loom
"We just worked very hard in the offseason to prepare ourselves for this fall season," Florida State offensive lineman Andrew Boselli said.
How and when to teach your children financial literacy
Research shows money habits are set by the age of seven. CBS News business analyst Jill Schlesinger discusses the importance of teaching children to be financially literate, plus how and when to introduce them to different concepts surrounding money.
The Lucid Air could be the first electric car with over 500 miles of range
Lucid, an electric vehicle company headed by former Tesla engineer Peter Rawlinson, has announced that its upcoming Lucid Air car is expected to get an EPA-rated range of at least 517 miles.
Pickled Jalapeños
Taqueria-style pickled jalapeños with onion, garlic and carrot are easy to make at home.
For Regina King, her 'Watchmen' role is inspired by 'every Black woman that ever was'
Three-time Emmy winner Regina King is up for a fourth for her lead turn in HBO's "Watchmen." And she directed her first film.
Google adds California's earthquake early warning system into Android phones
Google is adding California's earthquake early warning system as part of its Android operating system for mobile phones.
Meet 'Black Is King's' floral designer. How Maurice Harris uses flowers for justice
This California-native helped bring "Black Is King" to life. He also runs a floral design studio, a coffee shop and has a new Quibi show.
Verduras Encurtidas
These pickled vegetables are a little spicy from jalapeños and chiles de arbol.
Make your own pickled jalapeños for tacos and so much more
These versions of pickled jalapeños, one crunchy and one cooked, are easy to make for a tangy, spicy condiment.
Google Android phones to assist with earthquake alerts and searches
Bet you didn't know you have a mini-seismometer in your hand. Android is making use of the smartphone accelerometer for the new earthquake alerts.
Dustin May is living up to his potential
Dustin May's immense potential was on display on Monday in the Dodgers' 2-1 loss to the San Diego Padres.
Amid COVID-19 pandemic, people with diabetes struggle to get insulin
One in four people with diabetes have rationed supplies to cut the cost of their diabetes care since the start of the pandemic, a survey found.
Column: Customer service doesn't have to be this awful
Customer service has declined amid the pandemic. It's time for companies to recognize that treating customers better is good business.
This week in TikTok: So … is it getting banned or what?
Plus, the digital blackface problem we’re finally talking about. Hello from The Goods’ twice-weekly newsletter! On Tuesdays, internet culture reporter Rebecca Jennings uses this space to update you all on what’s been going on in the world of TikTok. Is there something you want to see more of? Less of? Different of? Email, and subscribe to The Goods’ newsletter here. If you or someone you love has recently been forced to know or care about what TikTok is, first of all, I’m sorry, this app will take over your life. Second of all, when was the last time normal people got this riled up about a potential sale of a foreign tech company? I certainly can’t recall, but underneath all the news — is Trump banning the app? Is Microsoft buying it? Are the faceless, omnipotent gods at TikTok stealing data? — are anxieties about China and, specifically, fears that the US may not be the one setting the ground rules of the internet. On August 6, President Trump issued executive orders that would ban two apps, TikTok and WeChat, from operating in the US if they were not sold by their respective Chinese parent companies by September 15. (In response, TikTok is now suing the Trump administration.) National security concerns over how the Chinese government could force TikTok to hand over American user data or censor content sensitive to the Communist Party of China have been brewing for more than a year. @hope_schwing #greenscreen ♬ dont use if straight tiktok - militarnime Both Microsoft and Twitter have reportedly been in talks to acquire TikTok, though a sale would be incalculably messy: Microsoft isn’t trying to buy TikTok, it’s trying to buy TikTok in the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and as my colleague Russell Brandom explains at The Verge, no one has ever split up a social network along regional lines; it’s unclear whether that’s even possible. “That central problem is much harder than anyone is willing to admit,” he writes. Meanwhile, the vultures are swarming. Last week Instagram launched its long-in-the-works copycat product, Reels, in the US. (Snapchat also has a competitor feature.) Though Reels is functionally identical to TikTok, it is as of yet unable to recreate the particular joy and originality of its predecessor, and most of the content seems like a sad facsimile of TikTok’s most boring memes. But back to why any of this matters to people who don’t otherwise care about viral dances or technology companies. The best and most clear-headed take on all of this, in my opinion, comes from Sarah Jeong, also writing for The Verge. She dubs the central strategy in play here “information-nationalism,” or the idea that to point out a country’s failures and human rights abuses is to make it weak (e.g. to accurately describe slavery’s history in the US is to slander America). The US, she argues, is afraid of TikTok because the country has made it an avatar of the Chinese approach to tech. The irony here, though, is that there are plenty of reasons to be actively terrified of how US tech companies and its own government use that same data, particularly the information revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013; when American politicians extoll the virtues of Silicon Valley while stoking fears about China, it’s rather hypocritical. “Just like China had tried to use Google to spy on its activists, the National Security Agency had been secretly collecting bulk data from almost every American company you could think of,” she writes. “The federal government has made it harder to see numbers on coronavirus infections. The president has even said on the record that increased testing will make him look bad. The logic behind this is the same logic that drove the Chinese Communist Party to hide the pandemic in Wuhan in the very early days, much to everyone’s detriment. The similarities in their behavior will not stop the president from blaming China for a cover-up — that’s exactly how information-nationalism works.” Even if Instagram Reels takes off, or even if TikTok is turned to dust with the stroke of a pen, it won’t matter, because while TikTok may be the first Chinese social media company to succeed on a truly global level, it likely won’t be the last. If the US believes that this is a problem, information-nationalism isn’t the answer. Meme watch On TikTok, some memes are funny, many are cringe, and a few are incredibly disgusting (do not click on that link unless you want to watch videos of people eating cereal with milk out of each other’s mouths). But among the worst and most insidious is the prevalence of digital blackface, in which white creators lip-sync to Black peoples’ voices or mimic their affectations. Digital blackface has always been a problem on the internet, and on TikTok, where mimicry is the lingua franca, it’s found new fertile ground. In this month’s Wired cover story, Jason Parham explores how TikTok has shaped this evolution, where memes like “Hot Cheeto Girl” and audio like Nene Leakes’s “whew chile, the ghetto” have become fair game for white creators. Said one woman interviewed for the story, “When you call them out, it’s, ‘Anyone of any race can be a Hot Cheeto Girl.’ No sweetheart, we know what you’re doing. We know that the Hot Cheeto Girl is just a derivative of the ghetto girl, the hood rat, the Shanaynay that people used to call Black and Latinx women.” @userconnorw #foryou #foryoupage #fyp ♬ Follow me - userconnorw The piece also includes a series of disturbing statements from TikTok creators on the racism they’ve experienced on the app, either from fellow users or from the technology itself — videos get taken down because sign language is read as a “gang symbol,” censorship of reactions to racist videos but no action taken on the racist video itself. It’s now common for Black creators to keep a backup account for when their main account eventually gets suspended for some nebulous violation. Most illuminating in Parham’s piece, though, is when he details the importance of seeing images of Black people online, and TikTok, despite its apparent issues, has been a home for many Black creators. Here he is talking about what the early days of social media as a Black person were like: “It wasn’t until college, where I spent hours a day clicking through Facebook, feeling connected to a world and the people who made it for what felt like the very first time, that I finally began to articulate what part of me had known since boyhood: that images make us true. From my laptop screen I gazed out into a kind of Black Universe. Here were Black people doing what we do: playing spades at a barbecue; hanging out with family members back home, caught mid-laugh. We posed for the camera every chance we got because we understood, though we never spoke it, that we’d exist here — somewhere — forever. There was air in our lungs, fire in our bones.” When white people attempt to put on that Blackness for TikTok, this is what they’re erasing. One Last Thing This was a rather depressing newsletter, so please enjoy this incredibly soothing video of a self-proclaimed cottagecore lesbian preparing a picnic for her girlfriend. The sandwich looks so good! @meredithettrich #picnicdate #picnic #beachdate #sunflowers #yellow #cookingasmr lesbians #cottagecore #masonjar #cute #fruit #asmr #dateideas #picnicbasket #berries ♬ Beautiful Sunset Piano - Cafe Music BGM channel Support Vox’s explanatory journalism Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.
Democratic convention speakers announced as Biden VP decision looms
With presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden expected to announce his running mate at any moment, the Democratic National Convention revealed more details Tuesday about the lineup of events and speakers at this year's event.
Sylvester Stallone selling his stretch Cadillac Escalade for $350G
The luxury SUV features recliners and wide-screen TV.
Rachael Ray’s kitchen spared despite raging fire at upstate mansion
Drone footage shows the extensive damage caused to the roof and second floor of Ray’s mansion.
Cardi B speaks out on Breonna Taylor’s death in Elle’s September issue
"It’s a crime! And no apology. No apology. No video of the cop coming out crying, ‘I f--ked up’ … Nothing."
Dwarf planet Ceres has an 'ancient ocean' with salt water, researchers confirm
Researchers have discovered that the dwarf planet Ceres has an "ancient ocean" with salt water, which means the space object may still be geologically active.
Kane Brown rescued by police after getting lost on his 30-acre Nashville property
Kane Brown revealed the police had to intervene when he and some friends got lost while perusing his new Nashville, Tenn., digs which consists of 30 acres of forested land.
These are the best roadside attractions in each state
Mermaids, martians and mysterious lights
Ivanka Trump, officials unveiling $122M investment for women empowerment initiative
Top security officials and American corporate leaders will unveil $122 million in new programs and partnerships for the administration’s Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative Tuesday afternoon, according to a White House official.
California Public Health Director Dr. Sonia Angell Resigns
Tuesday: A top state public health official resigned as California struggles with the pandemic. Also: A swarm of earthquakes; and women’s suffrage.
Small Business Optimism Tumbles as Virus Uncertainty Climbs
A tough month for small businesses as the reopening proves bumpier than initially expected.
Reported cases of children with COVID-19 increase 90% in 4 weeks as states eye school reopenings
Reported cases of coronavirus in children spiked 90% since early July. Dr. Tara Narula joins "CBS This Morning" to discuss what implications the data could have for school reopenings.
President Trump inaccurately stated the Spanish Flu pandemic ended World War II
President Trump inaccurately stated the Spanish Flu pandemic ended World War II. These events actually occurred decades apart from each other.
L.A. deputies point guns at 3 Black teens who say they were attacked
The Los Angeles County sheriff says he's concerned about the tactics the deputies used.
Cow and calf chase elderly California hikers who had to be airlifted out
A tense confrontation between a pair of elderly California hikers and a cow and her calf resulted in the intervention of a California Highway Patrol (CHP) helicopter on Sunday.
In Taiwan visit, Azar accuses China of 'hobbling' coronavirus response
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar accused China of "hobbling" the world's coronavirus response during a visit to Taiwan that has already incensed Chinese leaders.
Chicago man whose arrest sparked looting charged with attempted murder
The Chicago man whose arrest after a shootout with cops sparked looting in the city has been charged with attempted murder, according to officials. Latrell Allen, 20, was confronted in an alley Sunday because he matched the description of an armed suspect — and then “pointed a gun and fired multiple rounds at uniformed Chicago...
John Makdessi, Nasrat Haqparast spark up beef as they angle for a rebooking
John Makdessi and Nasrat Haqparast are eager to settle their differences in the octagon.        Related StoriesNasrat Haqparast credits newfound maturity for win over MunozUFC 252 free fight: Jairzinho Rozenstruik starches Junior Albini in promotional debutUFC 252 'Embedded,' No. 1: Sean O'Malley just feels 'super dangerous right now'
Lebanon’s leaders were warned in July about explosives at port, documents show
Just two weeks before the giant blast in Beirut, Lebanese security officials warned the country’s prime minister and president that the 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate stored at the port could destroy the capital if the highly volatile material exploded, according to a report. The General Directorate of State Security, which reviewed the events leading...
Lawmakers up the ante in push for sustained cash payments amid coronavirus: ‘Magic money tree’
Sen. Ed Markey drew backlash from fiscal hawks like Sen. Ted Cruz on Monday after tweeting an ambitious coronavirus stimulus plan that would involve much larger checks paid much more frequently than other proposals -- but it's hardly the first time such an idea has been floated as legislators trip over themselves to propose sweeping cash handouts to help Americans in dire financial straits during the pandemic.
UK sheds 730,000 jobs during the pandemic and wages are falling
CNN's Brian Stelter claims there are no anti-Trump news outlets, but his network's coverage suggests otherwise
CNN's media guru Brian Stelter suggested on Sunday that there are right-wing media outlets whose sole purpose is to tarnish Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election and that there are no such outlets that are doing the same to President Trump.
Stalled coronavirus relief negotiations hit new obstacle: State aid
The two sides are at odds over whether states should receive additional funding in the next round of emergency aid -- and if so, how much.
Tennessee couple brutally tortured, raped and killed woman: cops
A Tennessee couple who allegedly promised a woman a place to stay, tortured, raped and strangled her before storing her mutilated body in a freezer, police said. Sean Finnegan, 52, and girlfriend Rebecca Dishman, 22, were arrested Thursday at their Oak Ridge home after a search warrant was executed there and the remains of 36-year-old...
See what may be the world's most expensive face mask
An Israeli jeweler is making what may be the world's most expensive face mask at $1.5 million.
12-Year-Old Girl Lured to Swedish Asylum Home and Raped
A young man has been arrested in the municipality of Österåker after allegedly luring a 12-year-old girl and her friend to an asylum home and raping her.
Opinion: Big Ten swings and misses on a brand-damaging Monday, looking dumb and weak
Scorned by its own coaches and trolled by President Trump, the Big Ten backed down after reportedly voting to cancel the 2020 college football season.
L.A. County sheriff's deputies detain Black teens at gunpoint after they were allegedly attacked
An outraged California community is asking why sheriff's deputies pointed guns at three Black teenagers, who said a man chased them with a knife. Witness video shows one of the deputies aiming what looks like an assault rifle. The Los Angeles County sheriff says he's concerned about the tactics the deputies used. Jamie Yuccas looks at what the parents of two of the boys call their "worst nightmare."
The Supreme Court’s enigmatic “shadow docket,” explained
Chief Justice John Roberts speaks before presenting US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the American Law Institute’s Henry J. Friendly Medal in Washington, DC, on May 14, 2018. | Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images How the Supreme Court hides major conservative victories in plain sight. Last week, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision blocking a lower court’s order requiring a California jail to take several steps — such as socially distancing inmates and providing them with “hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol” — to prevent the spread of Covid-19 within the jail. I have no idea why the Supreme Court would do such a thing, and neither does anyone else who isn’t a justice or one of their closest advisers. The reason for our ignorance is that the five justices in the majority — all five of the Court’s Republicans — didn’t bother to explain their decision. The entirety of the Court’s order in Barnes v. Ahlman is a single paragraph of boilerplate language, informing the reader that “the district court’s May 26, 2020 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition” of a petition asking the justices to fully review this case. Hundreds of incarcerated people could become infected with a potentially deadly disease. And the Supreme Court won’t even tell us why. Welcome to the Court’s “shadow docket.” The term “shadow docket” was coined by University of Chicago law professor William Baude in an influential 2015 article. It refers to “a range of orders and summary decisions that defy [the Court’s] normal procedural regularity.” Often these orders are handed down without any explanation from the majority, or without much advance notice from the Court. Frequently they are handed down on Friday evenings, after at least some of the Supreme Court press corps are already a couple of beers into their weekends. Because shadow docket cases are often released without a majority opinion explaining the Court’s reasoning, they have less impact on legal doctrine than most ordinary decisions. Judges are bound by the Court’s majority opinions, but a lower court judge can’t follow an opinion that doesn’t exist. Nevertheless, the stakes in shadow docket cases — which often arise after a party files an emergency request asking the Court to block a lower court order — can be enormous. The decision in Barnes endangers the health of thousands of inmates. Other shadow docket decisions concern billions of dollars. Or they can effectively lock thousands of immigrants out of the country. The ideological cast of the shadow docket, moreover, is even more conservative than the Court’s regular docket. Though the Court’s recent term featured several high-profile — though often very narrow — victories for liberals, the Court’s party-line decision to lift safeguards against spreading Covid-19 within a California jail is more typical of its shadow docket. The Trump administration has a particularly high win rate in shadow docket cases. And it knows it. It asks the Supreme Court to block lower court orders far more than any recent administration. The Court, meanwhile, has shifted an increasing share of its output to this often inscrutable shadow docket. In the past year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has written several strongly worded dissents warning that her colleagues are bypassing safeguards intended to prevent the Court from handing down cursory, insufficiently thought-out decisions — and that they often do so to benefit the Trump administration. Her most recent dissent was in Barnes, the jail case. “The District Court found that, despite knowing the severe threat posed by COVID–19 and contrary to its own apparent policies, the Jail exposed its inmates to significant risks from a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease,” Sotomayor wrote. And yet the Supreme Court “intervenes, leaving to its own devices a jail that has misrepresented its actions to the District Court and failed to safeguard the health of the inmates in its care.” Perhaps there’s an explanation for why the Court’s Republican majority felt intervention was appropriate. But if there is one, they aren’t telling us. Because they are decided so quickly and often without explanation, moreover, shadow docket cases will tend to fly under the radar. But, with so much at stake in many of these cases, they deserve far more attention than they often receive. The Supreme Court’s normal process for hearing cases, explained Before we jump into the shadow docket, it’s helpful to understand how the Court ordinarily decides cases. The famous cases that you’ve most likely heard of — cases like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education — reach the Court through a long, drawn-out process that privileges careful decision-making over speed. Because the Supreme Court has the final word on all questions of federal law, including interpretations of the Constitution, the Court’s ordinary procedures call for it to act with great care to avoid making mistakes. For starters, the justices are extraordinarily selective about which cases they hearthrough their ordinary docket. In a typical year, lawyers file 7,000 to 8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari, the formal name for a petition asking the Supreme Court to give full review to a lower court’s order. The Court typically grants fewer than 80 of these “cert” petitions. Once such a petition is granted, the justices spend months pondering the case. Lawyers on either side of the dispute file lengthy briefs and voluminous collections of documents culled from the case’s overall record. In the most high-profile cases, dozens of amicus briefs may be filed on either side of the case as well — leaving the justices and their law clerks with hundreds or even thousands of pages of legal arguments to ponder before reaching a decision. And all of this typically happens after the case has already received considerable attention from lower court judges. The Supreme Court’s rules warn lawyers that, unless their case presents an unusually “important question of federal law” that demands the justices’ attention, the Court rarely grants cert petitions unless necessary to resolve a disagreement between two federal courts of appeals, two state supreme courts, or a federal court of appeal and a state supreme court. Thus, by the time the justices hear a case, the legal question presented by that case has typically been pondered by many lower court judges, and judges who disagree about the proper answer to that question have written their own opinions that the justices can rely on in thinking through the case themselves. As Peter Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University, told me, the “usual view” among judicial experts is that “you want that kind of percolation effect.” When there are “more eyeballs” on a legal question before it reaches the justices, the Supreme Court benefits from “more viewpoints,” and that tends to lead to better decisions. There’s also a very good reason the Supreme Court ordinarily moves so slowly, and typically spends so much time thinking about cases before handing down an opinion. There is no higher court that can correct the Supreme Court’s errors, so if the justices botch a case, that decision could linger forever. It will bind all future judges who are confronted with similar cases, and can only be overruled by a subsequent Supreme Court decision. Shadow docket cases receive little of the careful deliberation that goes into the ordinary docket Which brings us to the Court’s shadow docket. Unlike cases on the Court’s regular docket, shadow docket cases receive very limited briefings and are rarely, if ever, argued before the justices. Though the justices will often discuss these cases among themselves, they frequently do so on an extraordinarily compressed schedule — leaving far less time for reasoned debate. That’s often true because shadow docket casesfrequently arise from emergency requests asking the Court to grant swift and immediate relief, meaning that the justices will only spend days or even hours pondering how to rule on such a request. Because many of these cases are resolved in brief orders and without a written opinion explaining the majority’s reasoning,shadow docket cases often have less impact on legal doctrine than cases on the ordinary docket. Lower court judges are bound by the reasoning memorialized in the Supreme Court’s majority opinions, but they can’t be bound by an opinion that doesn’t exist. The Court does sometimes hand down majority opinions when it resolves cases on its shadow docket. To date, for example, the Court’s only majority opinion governing the rights of voters who are afraid of contracting Covid-19 if they go to the polls is Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee(2020). That decision, which effectively required Wisconsin to toss out many ballots cast in its election last April, was decided just two days after the GOP requested an emergency order from the Supreme Court. “It’s hard to imagine that [the justices] have the same deliberation or time to think about the varying arguments by each party” in many shadow docket cases, according to Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a professor and associate dean at Penn State Law. Yet when the Court hands down a majority opinion in a shadow docket case, lower court judges still must obey that decision. When the justices in the majority do not explain their reasoning, a different but also troubling problem arises. There’s a common phrase within the judiciary. When a judge initially thinks a case should come down one way, but then they start writing their opinion and realize they can’t come up with a legally sound argument justifying that outcome, they say that the opinion “won’t write.” The ordinary requirement that judges explain their decisions in reasoned opinions can be a tremendous check on judicial power. It discourages those judges from ruling in arbitrary ways. As Margulies told me, “there are some opinions that just aren’t going to work out” once a justice has taken sufficient time to reason through how to decide the case. But if the Supreme Court pushes too many of its decisions onto its shadow docket, the justices in the majority may never figure out that their first instinct regarding how to decide a case was flawed. Cases on the Court’s ordinary docket, moreover, receive a great deal of public scrutiny. Consider, for example, June Medical Services v. Russo, an abortion decision the Court handed down in June. Vox covered the Court’s decision to hear this case, its oral argument in this case, and its ultimate decision to strike down a Louisiana anti-abortion law as separate and important news events — and that sort of coverage is typical of outlets that cover the Supreme Court. We also probed the history of June Medical and similar cases. We reported on the political fallout from the Court’s decision. And that’s just a small fraction of our coverage of this highly newsworthy case. Shadow docket cases, by contrast, almost never receive this kind of attention. How could they when they are often decided so quickly that even many veteran Supreme Court journalists do not realize the Court is considering an important case until after a decision is handed down? For many of these reasons, the Supreme Court has historically applied a strong presumption against second-guessing lower court judges when a case arrives on the Court’s shadow docket. As Justice Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion in Wolf v. Cook County, one of several recent decisions where she criticized her colleagues for being too eager to stay lower court opinions, “stay applications force the Court to consider important statutory and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated fully in the lower courts, on abbreviated timetables and without oral argument.” A Supreme Court order blocking a lower court decision has historically been considered an “extraordinary” event, Sotomayor explained. But they’ve become increasingly common in the Trump years. Since the Court’s most recent term began last October, the justices have handed down at least 10 emergency orders decided by a 5-4 vote. Eight of these shadow docket cases granted full or partial relief to a party seeking to curtail a lower court order. The Court’s shadow docket decisions often have severe consequences for the most vulnerable communities The Court’s decision to, again borrowing from Sotomayor’s words, lift public health restrictions on a jail that “recently reported 15 new cases of COVID– 19 in a single week” is fairly typical of its recent shadow docket decisions. Though liberals sometimes prevail in these cases, the Court’s shadow docket cases far more frequently benefit conservative litigants and conservative causes, at least when the justices divide on the proper outcome. Of the 10 cases mentioned above, eight were decided along party lines with the Republican justices in the majority.And these decisions benefit conservatives at the expense of some of the most vulnerable communities subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. Republican National Committee, for example, forced many Wisconsin voters to make a devilish choice — give up their right to vote or risk becoming infected with a potentially deadly disease. The Court’s decision in Dunn v. Ray (2019) ruled that an Islamic death row inmate could not have his spiritual adviser present at his execution, even though the prison permitted Christian inmates to have a minister present to say last rites. And then there are the Court’s immigration decisions, where the Court has repeatedly blocked lower court decisions protecting immigrants in cases that arose on its shadow docket. Among other things, the Court’s shadow docket cases reinstated a Trump administration policy restricting low-income immigrants’ ability to enter the United States. They permitted Trump to spend billions to build a border wall. And they reinstated a policy that makes it so difficult for victims of persecution to seek asylum in the United States that, according to Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, that policy has the effect of “virtually ending asylum at one shot.” “When the Supreme Court acts to stay an injunction by the lower courts,” Wadhia told me, “it’s often at the expense of vulnerable people and, in this case, immigrants.” Prior to the Trump administration, the Justice Department typically understood that the justices viewed a Supreme Court stay of a lower court order as an extraordinary form of relief, and it rarely applied for such relief as a result. According to a November 2019 paper by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, “during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications — averaging one every other Term.” By contrast, “in less than three years, [Trump’s] Solicitor General has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court (including ten during the October 2018 Term alone).” The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has rewarded the Trump Justice Department’s behavior. Vladeck finds that the Trump administration achieved a full or partial victory in about two-thirds of cases where it seeks to temporarily block a lower court opinion. What was once extraordinary is now quite ordinary. The Trump administration, for what it’s worth, often argues that Supreme Court intervention is necessary because individual trial judges have handed down an unusual number of nationwide injunctions — orders blocking a federal policy throughout the entire country — since Trump became president. And there are good reasons to be cautious about such injunctions. If Joe Biden is president next year, many Republican judges could try to halt literally any action taken by the new administration. But according to Gelernt, there’s a good reason why lower courts have so frequently blocked Trump’s immigration policies — and why litigators often feel compelled to seek such relief. “The reason why there have been more national injunctions in the immigration area,” he told me, “is because the Trump administration has enacted so many policies that harm so many people immediately, leaving no choice but to seek immediate national relief.” It remains to be seen whether the Court will be equally zealous in policing lower court injunctions once Democrats control the elected branches of government. For the moment, however, it is hard to escape the impression that the Court is reaching out to do favors for the Trump administration, even if doing so means ignoring rules intended to prevent the Court from deciding cases too rashly. As Sotomayor wrote in her Wolf dissent, the Court’s “has been all too quick to grant the Government’s ‘reflexiv[e]’ requests,” at least when those requests come from Trump’s lawyers. Support Vox’s explanatory journalism Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.
'What an utterly terrible idea': Historian reacts to Trump
Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian and professor, reacts to President Donald Trump saying he will deliver his convention speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination from either the site of the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania or the White House in Washington, DC.
Who Won the Great Trump Diplomatic Game?
The joke, a throwaway quip, somehow captured the man and the moment—the end of one era, and the beginning of another. It was January 2017, and then–British Prime Minister Theresa May was in the White House, the first foreign leader to visit the new president of the United States, Donald Trump. For May, the trip had gone well: Pleasantries had been exchanged, faux pas avoided, commitments to NATO and the special relationship gleaned. Then came the press conference.“Mr. President,” the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, called on by May, began, “you’ve said before that torture works; you’ve praised Russia; you’ve said you want to ban some Muslims from coming to America; you’ve suggested there should be punishment for abortion. For many people in Britain, those sound like alarming beliefs. What do you say to our viewers at home who are worried about some of your views and are worried about you becoming the leader of the free world?” A momentary silence followed. Smiling, Trump turned to his guest: “This was your choice of a question?” The room burst into laughter. Then came the punch line: “There goes that relationship.”Trump’s remark may have been lighthearted, but it was also revealing: Here was a man who did not behave like a normal politician. He was unpredictable, uncontrollable, wild, and sometimes, yes, even funny. And yet he had an unmistakable streak of malice. Given the chance to ad-lib, Trump had joked that all it took was a tough question and the special relationship was off. It was funny because it pierced the tension in the room, but also because there was a ring of truth to it.Every world leader since has faced the same problem: How do you handle a man like Trump? Britain, with its special relationship and deep connections to the U.S., seemed particularly well suited to the game at hand, given the new president’s support for Brexit and his familial connection to Scotland through his mother. Yet the story of his presidency has been one of British diplomatic failure, not success. Years of directionless prevaricating in London were compounded by a turgid, inflexible, and unimaginative diplomatic effort in Washington. The result: Britain has achieved little of substance—whether on trade, Iran, the climate, or Russia.Since May’s visit, Britain’s influence in Washington has slumped. But a few countries have made significant diplomatic gains over the course of the Trump presidency—Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, and North Korea among them—by working with the president, his family, and friends in ways the European powers have not.[Read: The pandemic’s geopolitical aftershocks are coming]To understand who played the Great Trump Game well and what lessons can be drawn from their success, we spoke with more than a dozen current and former diplomats and officials in the U.S. and abroad, some who are still serving, others retired. Many of those we interviewed have worked directly with Trump and his administration, and the majority asked for anonymity in order to speak candidly. We also spoke with foreign-policy analysts, politicians, and political aides on both sides of the Atlantic to understand the long-term implications of Trump’s time in office. While the picture that emerges is a patchwork quilt of seemingly random American diplomatic achievements and failures, at least one clear pattern can be discerned: Hard men—they were all men—and dictators with deals to strike did well; Europeans who rely on history, democratic traditions, values, and strategic alliances did badly.To get ahead in Trump’s Washington, the lesson for other countries’ leaders and diplomats is clear: You need to have something to sell and the connections to sell it.Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu had a direct line to the president and used it—Trump’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem was a major victory. Saudi Arabia has similarly close ties to the Trump family through the president’s son-in-law and do-it-all adviser Jared Kushner and reaped the rewards, despite being caught decapitating and dismembering a Washington Post journalist. India has been “masterful” in its diplomatic strategy, according to one admiring diplomat, culminating in Narendra Modi’s trip to Texas last year and Trump’s state visit to Delhi in February. Turkey emerged with significant geopolitical gains in Syria, while North Korea has won previously undreamed-of status without giving away anything in return.Of America’s obvious adversaries, Russia remains the conundrum through its inexplicable hold over Trump. Russian President Vladimir Putin has managed to win favor without the fawning demanded of other states. And the only real strategic rival to U.S. hegemony—China—has suffered relentless criticism from the Republican Party, and at times become a lightning rod for the president’s animosity, but has continued to rise nonetheless.The problem for old American allies such as Britain, France, Germany, and even Australia, according to those who have worked closely with Trump, is that the president sees international relations as a series of business deals in which there are winners and losers. In his world, strategy, alliances, and values mean little.One former White House official told The Atlantic that Trump’s weakness is that his only yardstick is money. “Part of the reason for that is he’s absolutely, totally unaware of history,” this former official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to candidly relate private deliberations. “He doesn’t know, for example, why the Korean War happened, why there was an armistice.” Privately, the former official continued, Trump would question what had happened in the two world wars and why the U.S. military maintained permanent bases in Europe.[Read: How did we get here?]“He doesn’t have a strategic vision at all. If it’s anything, it’s to have other countries pay—plus 50 percent.” According to the former official, Trump sees in autocratic leaders such as Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and China’s Xi Jinping—as Trump would put it—“killer business guys like me.”In the Trump storm, the structures of American power, such as the professional foreign-policy apparatus, have been blown away. In their place, personality, politics, family, and money have come to the fore. “What Trump basically did was emasculate the rest of the diplomatic corps and all the elements of the U.S. government, so that everybody has to talk to Trump if they really want to know what’s going to happen,” Victor Cha, a Georgetown University professor and former national-security official under President George W. Bush, told us in an interview.. Some countries have thrived in this environment; many others have had to make do with surviving.Among those that managed to succeed, a pattern largely holds: You need an autocratic leader, a close connection to the Trump family, or a deal the president can hail as a victory. Ideally, you have all three. Perhaps the best example of this is Saudi Arabia. “The Saudis are doing business with us the way people do business with the Saudis,” Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and an official in the Reagan and both Bush administrations, told us. “They’re saying, ‘Okay, the United States has become like us. It’s being run by a family. So we will deal with the family.’”Trump was an early fan of Saudi Arabia. He made Riyadh his first foreign stop as president and his hosts pampered him, projecting a five-story image of him onto the hotel where he stayed and presenting him with a gold medallion that is the country’s highest civilian honor. Not even the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi was enough to deter a president focused on future deals. By then, Kushner was already close to the de facto Saudi ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. And in a statement largely absolving the Saudis of the Khashoggi killing, Trump explicitly referenced the $450 billion the kingdom had “agreed to spend and invest” in the U.S., including a sum on military equipment. Autocracy. Familial ties. Business deals.For Israel, too, an early bet on Trump has paid off. “Once it became clear that the Palestinian issue was going to be run out of the White House and the secretary of state would have nothing to do with it, [Netanyahu], who already had a relationship with Jared, essentially works the White House,” said Haass, author of The World: A Brief Introduction, published this year. “It’s the deinstitutionalization of foreign policy. That’s what we’re seeing here.”Israel is by no measure an autocracy, yet it meets the other two criteria—family ties and dealmaking: Netanyahu is an old friend of the Kushner family, who once slept in Kushner’s bedroom during a visit to New Jersey (leaving Jared to sleep in the basement). The Israeli leader also succeeded in persuading Trump to move the American embassy, and indulged Trump’s futile effort to strike “the deal of the century”—a Middle East peace plan. After its release in January, the proposal was immediately rejected by Palestinian leaders who saw it as too favorable to Israel, and since then it has mostly been ignored.[Read: Why America resists learning from other countries]Cha told us that world leaders who had done well for their country in the Trump era had discovered that some combination of these attributes was ripe for potential rewards, and many had arrived at the same strategy: Dress up your own national agenda as Trump’s and give the president all the credit for what you wanted in the first place. The Japanese, South Koreans, and North Koreans have been particularly adept at this game, Cha said. (The notable exception to this trend is Mexico, which has consistently found itself under attack from the White House, but did not pay for a wall it didn’t want, and whose president had a largely controversy-free visit to Washington in July.)A second former senior White House official said the importance of personal connections to the president was perhaps the key difference between prior administrations and Trump’s. “The Emiratis, the Saudis, and particularly the Israelis were very adept at cultivating those relationships,” this former official said. “The joke is that the U.S. ambassador to Israel doesn’t have a role, because the prime minister can go directly to Washington for everything.”In Washington, the extent to which Trump’s family inserted itself into foreign policy was a source of frustration to former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and others. Tillerson once entered a restaurant in Washington, D.C., and the proprietor came over to tell him that his Mexican counterpart, Luis Videgaray, was also dining there. When Tillerson walked over to say hello, he found Kushner sitting at the same table. “I could see the color go out of” Videgaray’s face, Tillerson told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “As it turned out later,” Tillerson continued, “the foreign secretary was operating on the assumption that everything he was talking to Mr. Kushner about had been run through the State Department and that I was fully on board with it. And he was rather shocked to find out that when he started telling me all these things that were news to me, I told him, ‘This is the first time I’m hearing of it.’” The first former White House official, meanwhile, recalled a meeting in Buenos Aires in 2018, during which Trump told Xi that Kushner would be involved in trade negotiations between the two countries. “I tell you,” this ex-official said, “they (the Chinese) brightened up, because they knew they could work him.”Over the course of this presidency, many foreign capitals appear to have realized how dependent they were on the whims of Trump’s temper or their ability to work family networks, and thus have sought strategies to hedge their bets with other centers of American power and influence, principally Congress. U.S. Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, told us in an interview that he had been getting lots of attention and requests for meetings in the Trump era. “It’s been a remarkable three years, and the list is long of ambassadors trying to get in to see me and have conversations to try to move the needle,” Coons said. “They’re looking for stability and reassurance in these relationships that have gone on for decades and are foundational to our security and prosperity.”Precisely that kind of decades-long foundational relationship is what European allies had long depended on, and the reliance on those strategic ties appears to have been their undoing during this administration. None of Europe’s biggest countries had expected a Trump victory. The second ex–White House official said that, more than most, Britain, France, and Germany had sought to intensify their efforts with Congress because of the limited headway they were making with Trump, particularly in preserving the Iranian nuclear deal and avoiding the imposition of tariffs. Congress was the only avenue left because making progress with the Trump administration was so difficult, Cha told us.[Read: Putin is well on his way to stealing the next election]The problem for traditional U.S. allies—Britain, France, and Germany, but also Japan and Australia—is that, unlike the quick hit of a diplomatic breakthrough with Trump, building support in Congress is slow.For European powers, the trials and tribulations of the Trump era offer a salutary lesson in international relations: National interest remains king.While Trump has been explicit in this transactional view, showing little interest in notions of shared values or enduring alliances forged after the Second World War, in many respects his outlook is just a more extreme (and, so far, glaringly unsuccessful) version of that pursued by all U.S. presidents.Even at the height of the Anglo-American alliance during the Second World War, Franklin Roosevelt coldly pursued American national interest in the struggle against Nazi Germany. Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman, quickly sidelined Britain after the war to deal directly with Moscow, reflecting the new reality of the world. Soon after, Dwight Eisenhower, the hero of D-Day, left Britain in the lurch in Suez in 1956, before John F. Kennedy canceled a missile program seen as vital to Britain’s national security, leading to vitriolic British headlines about the president’s Irish heritage. Those would find an unlikely echo almost six decades later when Boris Johnson, then not yet prime minister, accused Barack Obama of harboring an ancestral dislike for Britain because of his Kenyan father. Today, in British diplomatic circles, the changing demographic makeup of the U.S. is cited as a challenge, as the old elite ties that once bound Washington and London have been replaced by a more diverse America’s new connections to Latin America, Asia, and elsewhere.For Britain, though, such concerns are little more than a fig leaf to cover underlying tensions. As early as 1950, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, whose father was English, ordered officials to stop talking about a “special relationship” with Britain, arguing the term gave the false impression that it trumped other alliances. This is not, then, the first time that Britain’s influence in Washington—indeed, like any other state—has rested on its own short-term strength and usefulness. Ties at the highest level improved when Tony Blair stood alongside Bush during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, whereas in the two decades since, Britain’s willingness to engage on the world stage (and thus its usefulness) has deteriorated.Trump’s bellicosity may have spooked European states, including Britain, whose security is dependent on American goodwill and support, but according to those we spoke with, the past three years have only emphasized the structural problem Europe’s premier powers already faced. Ultimately, these countries cannot expect to continue wielding special influence in Washington if they do not offer special benefits to the U.S. in return. And on this score, Europe’s worth to Washington has been deteriorating as the principal strategic threat to American interests moves away from Europe’s borders to the South China Sea. No talk about history, kinship, shared values, or the rules-based international order can hide this reality.[Read: How should Biden handle China?]One British official said a number of core diplomatic challenges for London would continue beyond 2020, whatever happened in the presidential election. Unless the country addresses its shrinking military capacity and its perceived unreliability as a foreign-policy and security partner, Britain’s influence will continue to suffer. The official said Britain needs to be more assertive about what it brings to the table, and to acknowledge that it remains overwhelmingly in Britain’s national interest for the U.S. to remain the preeminent global power—not China. But to begin with, this official said, London needs to be honest about the damage its military cuts have caused.The U.K.’s failures in the Trump era are symptomatic of a deeper malaise in its foreign policy, according to conversations with multiple influential British officials close to Johnson. In this view, Britain has struggled under Trump because its embassy has forgotten how to fight to be heard, and how to build a broad base of support in Congress and American society, while others such as India, Greece, Ireland, and Israel put great stock in their networks on the Hill and pulled ahead. The British embassy, we were told by two separate high-ranking and influential figures, has been too passive in its efforts for too long.Now overtaken, Britain faces the nightmare scenario of becoming associated with Trump, having desperately sought to win him over, in the eyes of a Democratic Party that may soon hold the keys to both the White House and Congress. As a result, Britain may soon find itself with an entirely new set of challenges, and the same set of core strategic weaknesses as before.European capitals, according to the first former White House official who spoke with us, have concluded that Trump is a “complete aberration.” The former official continued: “They’re saying, ‘This is a one-off. There’s not another man on the planet like this guy.’ Consequently, when he leaves office, the Americans will rebuild these relationships.”That may well be the case if Trump were to lose his bid for reelection in November, but what if he prevails? “He’s done damage,” John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser who was ousted last year and went on to release a tell-all book, told us. “After one term, the damage can be repaired fairly easily. What bothers me is the risk of a second term, where I think the damage may not be so easily repaired. And that could cause lasting harm, which is one reason I’m not going to vote for him in November.”Still, whether in 2020 or 2024, Trump will leave office at some point, and American foreign-policy making will continue. The Washington game is much longer than the presidency of one man. “Personal relationships are important,” Antony Blinken, a senior foreign-policy adviser to the Biden campaign and a former foreign-policy official in the Obama administration, said, “but if they’re the sum and substance of your foreign policy, you’re going to have a problem.”For the past three years, leaders, ambassadors, and kings have competed in the Great Trump Game for influence and favor. Deals have been made, egos burned, reputations burnished, careers trashed. Yet the underlying reality is that Trump did not change the nature of the game itself. In his pantomime mendacity, he managed to reveal what had been shrouded in politeness before: British weakness, European incoherence, and Chinese power. The president might have created new ways of winning and losing, but in the end he did not build a new world—he exposed the nature of the one that already existed.
Opinion: Tiz the Law, Gamine clash in Preakness just what racing needs post-Kentucky Derby
If Tiz the Law wins the Kentucky Derby, and the filly Gamine takes the Kentucky Oaks, a showdown at Pimlico on Oct. 3 would be a race for the ages.
Trump's former assistant gives first TV interview since firing: 'I take full responsibility'
President Trump's former executive assistant spoke to "Fox & Friends" in her first on-camera interview about a "lapse in judgment" that got her fired in Aug. 2019 and a shocking personal detail she told the president just days ago.
Vladimir Putin says Russia has registered coronavirus vaccine and his daughter has been given it
Speaking at a government meeting Tuesday, Putin said the vaccine has proven efficient during tests, offering a lasting immunity from the coronavirus.
LaKeith Stanfield says he's not harming himself after cryptic posts were flagged by Patton Oswalt
Actor LaKeith Stanfield says he's fine after alarming many fans with cryptic posts on Instagram that had many worried for his personal well-being.