Online news, media and entertainment company

Donate to an Abortion Fund Right Now The Senate just confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. It is just one month after she was nominated by Donald Trump. The presidential election is in one week. By now, you’ve likely heard Democrats and reproductive-rights activists sound the alarm on Barrett’s  views on abortion . Her record certainly indicates that  Roe  v.  Wade  could be imperiled with her confirmation to the court: She is supported by anti-choice fundraising organization the Susan B. Anthony List; she has given talks to multiple right-to-life groups at Notre Dame; she has signed a letter calling  Roe  “barbaric.” (During her confirmation hearing, she refused to comment directly on the ruling, demurring, “I can’t express views on cases. I can’t pre-commit.”) If  Roe  is overturned, lawmakers in 22 states could ban abortion outright, immediately. People in 11 more states are at risk of losing their right to abortion because it ...

Supreme Court’s Vague Election Orders Are a 2020 Wild Card In the unbelievably complicated run-up to the 2020 elections, a variable we really aren’t used to seeing is frequent interventions in election law disputes by the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s largely a product of the  vast wave of litigation  by competing voting-rights and voting-suppression interest groups, mostly generated by adjustments in election procedures attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. But it’s made more frustrating by the fact that the Supreme Court’s involvement is via largely unexplained “orders” in response to “emergency” requests for rulings, which can make life difficult for lower courts and the contending parties. As Adam Liptak of the New York  Times   observes , we are in uncharted territory here: At least nine times since April, the Supreme Court has issued rulings in election disputes. Or perhaps “rulings” is too generous a word for those unsigned orders, which addressed matters as conse...

Gujarat HC starts live streaming of proceedings Proceedings were live on the YouTube link — provided on the Gujarat HC website — for over five hours and about half-a-dozen cases were heard. Around 68,324 viewers watched the channel on Monday. The first hearing that was live streamed on Monday was a plea seeking relief for admission to medical colleges through NEET for students who had not taken the Class 12 exam from Gujarat. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The Gujarat high court on Monday became the first in the country to start live streaming proceedings on a YouTube channel, with the court of chief justice Vikram Nath accessible to the public through a link on the court’s official website. Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde said on Monday that in practice though, live streaming could be misused as already he was facing several complaints over the virtual hearings taking place over the videoconferencing app Vidyo. According to an administrative order issued by justice Nath, the live te...