1UA TV

The United States has announced plans to re-impose tough sanctions on Iran’s energy and banking sectors, saying Iran needs to change its behavior and act like a “normal country.” VOA’s Diplomatic Correspondent Cindy Saine has more from Washington.
…

The United States has announced plans to re-impose tough sanctions on Iran’s energy and banking sectors, saying Iran needs to change its behavior and act like a “normal country.” VOA’s Diplomatic Correspondent Cindy Saine has more from Washington.
…

President Donald Trump’s opportunity to name a new Supreme Court justice to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy caps a reshaping of the U.S. federal judiciary that has already been long under way.

Well before Kennedy announced his retirement last week, Trump began quietly and methodically naming conservatives to federal courts, including a record number of jurists to the powerful courts of appeals that are just one rung below the Supreme Court.

The lifetime appointments of relatively young judges with solidly conservative records will all but ensure Trump’s mark on the federal judiciary — and on American society — for a generation to come. 

“The judge story is an untold story. Nobody wants to talk about it,” Trump said at the White House in May.

“But when you think about it,” he added, standing next to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, “Mitch and I were saying, this has consequences 40 years out, depending on the age of the judge — but 40 years out.”

Trump campaigned for the White House on the promise to name conservatives to the Supreme Court and other federal benches.

Federal judiciary

When he took office, Trump inherited more than 100 vacancies in the federal judiciary, thanks to Republican efforts to block virtually all judicial nominations during the final two years of former President Barack Obama’s term.

Federal judges require Senate confirmation. Until recently, the minority party in the Senate — now the Democrats — could block judicial nominations through a parliamentary procedure known as the filibuster.  

But with the procedure abolished in recent years, first for federal judges and then for Supreme Court justices, the Republicans have been able to push through Trump’s judicial nominees even with their razor-thin majority in the Senate.

According to the Alliance for Justice, a judicial advocacy organization, Trump has had 21 federal appeals judges confirmed by the Senate during his 17 months in office, far outpacing former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush at this point in their first terms.  

But the president has had less success with appointments at the district level. Out of his 96 nominees for district courts, just 20 have been confirmed, fewer than Obama’s and Bush’s records. 

The power of federal judges has been on full display over the past year and a half. Federal judges temporarily blocked Trump’s so-called “travel ban” and his decision to end the program that protects from deportation undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

Trump has denounced the court rulings by district judges, but in his judicial appointments he has prioritized nominating federal appeals judges. 

That is because federal appeals courts are the final arbiter in the overwhelming majority of federal cases, said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank that advises the White House on judicial selections. (The Federalist Society is another conservative group that helps the White House select judicial candidates.) 

The Supreme Court takes up between 70 and 75 cases a year, compared with more than 50,000 cases filed in federal appeals courts.

“On a number of important constitutional and statutory cases, they’re often the last word,” Malcolm said. “So, the people who sit on those courts can have a very large impact on the direction of the law.”

Some controversial nominees

Trump’s judicial candidates have not been without controversy. One was forced to withdraw his candidacy after it was disclosed that he’d called transgender children part of “Satan’s plan.”

Liberals have been sounding the alarm about a “right-wing takeover” of the federal courts, pointing to the decisive votes Trump-nominated judges have cast in a string of court cases. 

“He has picked people who have been ideologically far to the right,” said Caroline Fredrickson, president of left-leaning American Constitution Society (ACS).

Trump allies defend the president’s selections as sound choices that will restore the judiciary’s role as the interpreter of laws.

White House Counsel Don McGahn, who spearheads judicial selections for Trump, said earlier this year that the president wants judges who have a “commitment to the notion of a rule of law” and who “read the law as written.”

“He ran on the idea of the judicial branch needing some help. He’s delivered on those promises,” McGahn said at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February.

Currently, about 17 percent of federal judgeships are vacant. With more likely to open up over the next two years, Trump could end up appointing 15 percent to 20 percent of the judiciary by the end of his current term, said Fredrickson, of the ACS.

Republicans hope to keep control of the Senate after the November congressional elections, which would allow them to swell the ranks of the judiciary with Trump’ nominees.

McConnell, a key Trump ally on judicial selections, said in May that if Republicans keep their majority in the Senate, “we can do this for two more years, so that through the full four years of President Trump’s term, he will make a lasting generational contribution to the country, having strict constructionists on the court.”

On the other hand, a Democratic takeover of the Senate could effectively put an end to Trump’s judicial appointments, Fredrickson said.

“There will be no more judges confirmed unless they happen to be people recommended by Democratic senators,” she said.
…

President Donald Trump’s opportunity to name a new Supreme Court justice to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy caps a reshaping of the U.S. federal judiciary that has already been long under way.

Well before Kennedy announced his retirement last week, Trump began quietly and methodically naming conservatives to federal courts, including a record number of jurists to the powerful courts of appeals that are just one rung below the Supreme Court.

The lifetime appointments of relatively young judges with solidly conservative records will all but ensure Trump’s mark on the federal judiciary — and on American society — for a generation to come. 

“The judge story is an untold story. Nobody wants to talk about it,” Trump said at the White House in May.

“But when you think about it,” he added, standing next to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, “Mitch and I were saying, this has consequences 40 years out, depending on the age of the judge — but 40 years out.”

Trump campaigned for the White House on the promise to name conservatives to the Supreme Court and other federal benches.

Federal judiciary

When he took office, Trump inherited more than 100 vacancies in the federal judiciary, thanks to Republican efforts to block virtually all judicial nominations during the final two years of former President Barack Obama’s term.

Federal judges require Senate confirmation. Until recently, the minority party in the Senate — now the Democrats — could block judicial nominations through a parliamentary procedure known as the filibuster.  

But with the procedure abolished in recent years, first for federal judges and then for Supreme Court justices, the Republicans have been able to push through Trump’s judicial nominees even with their razor-thin majority in the Senate.

According to the Alliance for Justice, a judicial advocacy organization, Trump has had 21 federal appeals judges confirmed by the Senate during his 17 months in office, far outpacing former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush at this point in their first terms.  

But the president has had less success with appointments at the district level. Out of his 96 nominees for district courts, just 20 have been confirmed, fewer than Obama’s and Bush’s records. 

The power of federal judges has been on full display over the past year and a half. Federal judges temporarily blocked Trump’s so-called “travel ban” and his decision to end the program that protects from deportation undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

Trump has denounced the court rulings by district judges, but in his judicial appointments he has prioritized nominating federal appeals judges. 

That is because federal appeals courts are the final arbiter in the overwhelming majority of federal cases, said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank that advises the White House on judicial selections. (The Federalist Society is another conservative group that helps the White House select judicial candidates.) 

The Supreme Court takes up between 70 and 75 cases a year, compared with more than 50,000 cases filed in federal appeals courts.

“On a number of important constitutional and statutory cases, they’re often the last word,” Malcolm said. “So, the people who sit on those courts can have a very large impact on the direction of the law.”

Some controversial nominees

Trump’s judicial candidates have not been without controversy. One was forced to withdraw his candidacy after it was disclosed that he’d called transgender children part of “Satan’s plan.”

Liberals have been sounding the alarm about a “right-wing takeover” of the federal courts, pointing to the decisive votes Trump-nominated judges have cast in a string of court cases. 

“He has picked people who have been ideologically far to the right,” said Caroline Fredrickson, president of left-leaning American Constitution Society (ACS).

Trump allies defend the president’s selections as sound choices that will restore the judiciary’s role as the interpreter of laws.

White House Counsel Don McGahn, who spearheads judicial selections for Trump, said earlier this year that the president wants judges who have a “commitment to the notion of a rule of law” and who “read the law as written.”

“He ran on the idea of the judicial branch needing some help. He’s delivered on those promises,” McGahn said at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February.

Currently, about 17 percent of federal judgeships are vacant. With more likely to open up over the next two years, Trump could end up appointing 15 percent to 20 percent of the judiciary by the end of his current term, said Fredrickson, of the ACS.

Republicans hope to keep control of the Senate after the November congressional elections, which would allow them to swell the ranks of the judiciary with Trump’ nominees.

McConnell, a key Trump ally on judicial selections, said in May that if Republicans keep their majority in the Senate, “we can do this for two more years, so that through the full four years of President Trump’s term, he will make a lasting generational contribution to the country, having strict constructionists on the court.”

On the other hand, a Democratic takeover of the Senate could effectively put an end to Trump’s judicial appointments, Fredrickson said.

“There will be no more judges confirmed unless they happen to be people recommended by Democratic senators,” she said.
…

Yeni Gonzalez of Guatemala crossed the border into the United States illegally and was separated from her children. VOA is following her quest to overcome legal barriers and get her kids back from distant detention centers. As VOA’s Celia Mendoza reports from Arizona, this is one case among the 2,000 children of illegal migrants separated from their families.
…

Yeni Gonzalez of Guatemala crossed the border into the United States illegally and was separated from her children. VOA is following her quest to overcome legal barriers and get her kids back from distant detention centers. As VOA’s Celia Mendoza reports from Arizona, this is one case among the 2,000 children of illegal migrants separated from their families.
…

The European Union has warned the United States that placing tariffs on automobiles would end up hurting the U.S. economy and would probably result in retaliatory measures from its trading partners.

In a letter sent to U.S. Commerce Department Friday, the European Union said tariffs on European cars and car parts were unjustifiable.

U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed imposing a 20 percent duty on EU car imports, citing security concerns. It was not immediately clear what those concerns are.

The EU letter said, “In 2017, U.S.-based EU companies, produced close to 2.9 million automobiles, which accounted for 26 percent of total U.S. production.” The submission said European car companies are “well established” in the United States.

The European car industry in the United States supports some 120,000 jobs in its factories that are mainly in the southern region of the country. A tariffs war could adversely affect those jobs in a region known for its support of the U.S. president.

 
…

The European Union has warned the United States that placing tariffs on automobiles would end up hurting the U.S. economy and would probably result in retaliatory measures from its trading partners.

In a letter sent to U.S. Commerce Department Friday, the European Union said tariffs on European cars and car parts were unjustifiable.

U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed imposing a 20 percent duty on EU car imports, citing security concerns. It was not immediately clear what those concerns are.

The EU letter said, “In 2017, U.S.-based EU companies, produced close to 2.9 million automobiles, which accounted for 26 percent of total U.S. production.” The submission said European car companies are “well established” in the United States.

The European car industry in the United States supports some 120,000 jobs in its factories that are mainly in the southern region of the country. A tariffs war could adversely affect those jobs in a region known for its support of the U.S. president.

 
…

A U.S. congressional delegation is meeting with senior Russian officials in St. Petersburg amid preparations for a summit between the nations’ presidents.

U.S.-Russian ties have hit the lowest point in decades due to sanctions over Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election and disagreement over Syria, Ukraine and other topics.

St. Petersburg governor Georgy Poltavchenko told U.S. congressmen on Monday that he hopes for a warming of ties. “We look into the future with optimism and are ready for cooperation on all fronts,” he said.

Richard Shelby, a Republican senator from Alabama who heads the delegation, also called for dialogue, according to a statement from the governor’s office.

Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, would not say whether the congressmen would later meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 
…

A U.S. congressional delegation is meeting with senior Russian officials in St. Petersburg amid preparations for a summit between the nations’ presidents.

U.S.-Russian ties have hit the lowest point in decades due to sanctions over Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election and disagreement over Syria, Ukraine and other topics.

St. Petersburg governor Georgy Poltavchenko told U.S. congressmen on Monday that he hopes for a warming of ties. “We look into the future with optimism and are ready for cooperation on all fronts,” he said.

Richard Shelby, a Republican senator from Alabama who heads the delegation, also called for dialogue, according to a statement from the governor’s office.

Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, would not say whether the congressmen would later meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 
…

China, though barred from the world’s largest multi-country naval exercises this year, will shrug off the slight because it has accumulated enough power in Asia’s disputed seas to cause it little concern about the U.S.-led maneuvers, experts believe.

The United States uninvited China from attending the Rim of the Pacific Exercise in view of Beijing’s naval expansion, the U.S. Department of Defense said in a statement June 2. The exercises better known as RIMPAC bring together 25 countries, 45 vessels and 25,000 people.

Beijing need not worry because it has already militarized its key islets in the South China Sea over the protests of Southeast Asian states and cultivated a blue-water navy that plies the open Pacific Ocean despite objections from Japan and Taiwan, analysts say.

“They’ll shrug it off,” said Jeffrey Kingston, author and history instructor at Temple University Japan. “I think they know there’s displeasure about their actions, but they’re not going to lose sleep over it.”

RIMPAC 2018 exercises

RIMPAC exercises for 2018 began last week. The series of maneuvers coordinated from Honolulu were highlighted by amphibious assault vehicle training by U.S., Canadian and Mexican forces.

The exercises, set to last through July 16, will also cover live-fire drills, urban tactics and “scenario-based small-unit leadership exercises,” the U.S. Navy’s website said.

Exercises help the military personnel of participating countries — all fundamentally U.S. allies — get to know one another for future cooperation and emergency responses, said Jay Batongbacal, a University of the Philippines international maritime affairs professor. The event poses no threat to China, he said.

The U.S. government “disinvited” the People’s Liberation Army Navy from the 2018 exercises “as initial response to China’s continued militarization of the South China Sea,” Defense Secretary James Mattis was quoted saying on his department’s website.

“China’s behavior is inconsistent with the principles and the purposes of the RIMPAC exercise, an exercise in which transparency and cooperation are hallmarks,” he said.

Beijing sealed itself off from RIMPAC by placing missiles and fighter jets in the disputed South China Sea and passing naval vessels and military aircraft near Taiwan since 2016, analysts say.

“Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea, as well as its continued encirclement and harassment of Taiwan, clearly places it outside our circle of like-minded partners,” said Sean King, vice president of the Park Strategies political consultancy in New York.

China undaunted

China attended the 2016 RIMPAC exercises with five warships, 1,200 officers and soldiers as well as combat divers. It was invited back to the event last year. RIMPAC was first held in 1971.

This year its Communist Party-run newspaper Global Times called “the provocative involvement of the U.S…. now the biggest source of risk” in the region.

Beijing need not fret over its exclusion because it has built military infrastructure on its main holdings in the South China Sea with unimpeded access for aircraft, radar systems and in one case reported earlier this year, missiles, scholars in Asia say.

“China’s policies over the South China Sea are pretty much set in stone, as far as it’s concerned, so even if it did participate in RIMPAC it would not have changed anything,” Batongbacal said.

Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam contest Chinese sovereignty over all or parts of the South China Sea. China has the strongest armed forces in the region. It has offered economic aid to much of Southeast Asia, effectively keeping some of the disputants there quiet, scholars have said previously.

All claimants prize the 3.5 million-square-kilometer sea for its fisheries and fossil fuel reserves. Washington does not have a claim to the waterway, which extends from Hong Kong south to the island of Borneo, but it periodically sends vessels to the sea to counter Chinese influence.

China has rattled Taiwan over the past three years with military aircraft flybys near the self-ruled island’s air defense identification zone and tested Japanese control over the uninhabited Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. China claims the same islands, which it calls the Diaoyu.

Japan and the four Southeast Asian states that dispute Beijing’s South China Sea claims joined RIMPAC this year. Japan will be glad China’s not there, Kingston said. The Philippines can “practice and learn” from RIMPAC’s joint operations, Batongbacal said.

China might retaliate against its un-invitation by spiking a future military exchange with the United States, said Huang Kwei-bo, vice dean of the international affairs college at National Chengchi University in Taipei. But in the long term, he said, “military exchanges will be normal.”

“I don’t know how [China] would react if it wanted to,” Huang said. “To react, for example, if a U.S. general were to visit, they could say ‘no need to come.’”
…

China, though barred from the world’s largest multi-country naval exercises this year, will shrug off the slight because it has accumulated enough power in Asia’s disputed seas to cause it little concern about the U.S.-led maneuvers, experts believe.

The United States uninvited China from attending the Rim of the Pacific Exercise in view of Beijing’s naval expansion, the U.S. Department of Defense said in a statement June 2. The exercises better known as RIMPAC bring together 25 countries, 45 vessels and 25,000 people.

Beijing need not worry because it has already militarized its key islets in the South China Sea over the protests of Southeast Asian states and cultivated a blue-water navy that plies the open Pacific Ocean despite objections from Japan and Taiwan, analysts say.

“They’ll shrug it off,” said Jeffrey Kingston, author and history instructor at Temple University Japan. “I think they know there’s displeasure about their actions, but they’re not going to lose sleep over it.”

RIMPAC 2018 exercises

RIMPAC exercises for 2018 began last week. The series of maneuvers coordinated from Honolulu were highlighted by amphibious assault vehicle training by U.S., Canadian and Mexican forces.

The exercises, set to last through July 16, will also cover live-fire drills, urban tactics and “scenario-based small-unit leadership exercises,” the U.S. Navy’s website said.

Exercises help the military personnel of participating countries — all fundamentally U.S. allies — get to know one another for future cooperation and emergency responses, said Jay Batongbacal, a University of the Philippines international maritime affairs professor. The event poses no threat to China, he said.

The U.S. government “disinvited” the People’s Liberation Army Navy from the 2018 exercises “as initial response to China’s continued militarization of the South China Sea,” Defense Secretary James Mattis was quoted saying on his department’s website.

“China’s behavior is inconsistent with the principles and the purposes of the RIMPAC exercise, an exercise in which transparency and cooperation are hallmarks,” he said.

Beijing sealed itself off from RIMPAC by placing missiles and fighter jets in the disputed South China Sea and passing naval vessels and military aircraft near Taiwan since 2016, analysts say.

“Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea, as well as its continued encirclement and harassment of Taiwan, clearly places it outside our circle of like-minded partners,” said Sean King, vice president of the Park Strategies political consultancy in New York.

China undaunted

China attended the 2016 RIMPAC exercises with five warships, 1,200 officers and soldiers as well as combat divers. It was invited back to the event last year. RIMPAC was first held in 1971.

This year its Communist Party-run newspaper Global Times called “the provocative involvement of the U.S…. now the biggest source of risk” in the region.

Beijing need not fret over its exclusion because it has built military infrastructure on its main holdings in the South China Sea with unimpeded access for aircraft, radar systems and in one case reported earlier this year, missiles, scholars in Asia say.

“China’s policies over the South China Sea are pretty much set in stone, as far as it’s concerned, so even if it did participate in RIMPAC it would not have changed anything,” Batongbacal said.

Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam contest Chinese sovereignty over all or parts of the South China Sea. China has the strongest armed forces in the region. It has offered economic aid to much of Southeast Asia, effectively keeping some of the disputants there quiet, scholars have said previously.

All claimants prize the 3.5 million-square-kilometer sea for its fisheries and fossil fuel reserves. Washington does not have a claim to the waterway, which extends from Hong Kong south to the island of Borneo, but it periodically sends vessels to the sea to counter Chinese influence.

China has rattled Taiwan over the past three years with military aircraft flybys near the self-ruled island’s air defense identification zone and tested Japanese control over the uninhabited Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. China claims the same islands, which it calls the Diaoyu.

Japan and the four Southeast Asian states that dispute Beijing’s South China Sea claims joined RIMPAC this year. Japan will be glad China’s not there, Kingston said. The Philippines can “practice and learn” from RIMPAC’s joint operations, Batongbacal said.

China might retaliate against its un-invitation by spiking a future military exchange with the United States, said Huang Kwei-bo, vice dean of the international affairs college at National Chengchi University in Taipei. But in the long term, he said, “military exchanges will be normal.”

“I don’t know how [China] would react if it wanted to,” Huang said. “To react, for example, if a U.S. general were to visit, they could say ‘no need to come.’”
…

Washington is gearing up for a protracted battle over a looming U.S. Supreme Court vacancy as President Donald Trump considers a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is retiring at the end of the month. VOA’s Michael Bowman has this report.
…

Washington is gearing up for a protracted battle over a looming U.S. Supreme Court vacancy as President Donald Trump considers a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is retiring at the end of the month. VOA’s Michael Bowman has this report.
…