ATLANTA — Defense attorneys on Thursday withdrew a request to bar the news media from an important part of jury selection in the trial involving the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. Media companies, including The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CNN, The Associated Press, and WSB-TV Channel 2 Action News, had opposed the motion to keep the press out of the courtroom during individual questioning of potential jurors for the Oct. 18 murder trial. “We very much object to the closure,” Atlanta lawyer Tom Clyde, who represents the media outlets, told Judge Timothy Walmsley at the outset of a daylong hearing....
Stories Chosen For You
A US navy destroyer sunk during World War II has been found nearly 7,000 meters (23,000 feet) below sea level off the Philippines, making it the world's deepest shipwreck ever located, an American exploration team said.
The USS Samuel B Roberts went down during a battle off the central island of Samar on October 25, 1944 as US forces fought to liberate the Philippines -- then a US colony -- from Japanese occupation.
A crewed submersible filmed, photographed and surveyed the battered hull of the "Sammy B" during a series of dives over eight days this month, Texas-based undersea technology company Caladan Oceanic said.
Images showed the ship's three-tube torpedo launcher and gun mount.
"Resting at 6,895 meters, it is now the deepest shipwreck ever located and surveyed," tweeted Caladan Oceanic founder Victor Vescovo, who piloted the submersible.
"This small ship took on the finest of the Japanese Navy, fighting them to the end," he said.
According to US Navy records, Sammy B's crew "floated for nearly three days awaiting rescue, with many survivors perishing from wounds and shark attacks". Of the 224 crew, 89 died.
The battle was part of the larger Battle of Leyte, which saw intense fighting over several days between US and Japanese forces.
Sammy B was one of four US ships sunk in the October 25 engagement.
The USS Johnston, which at nearly 6,500 meters was previously the world's deepest shipwreck identified, was reached by Vescovo's team in 2021.
In the latest search, the team also looked for the USS Gambier Bay at more than 7,000 meters below sea level, but was unable to locate it.
It did not search for the USS Hoel due to the lack of reliable data showing where it may have gone down.
The wreck of the Titanic lies in about 4,000 meters of water.
© 2022 AFP
With its Siamese-twin decisions on Thursday and Friday, the Supreme Court didn't just turn back the clock or flip through the pages of the calendar looking for a new decade — or century — to love. Calling themselves textualists and originalists, they simply put the Constitution through a search engine and told it to look for some key words: Abortion? Uh-huh, not there. Gay sex? Not in 1791 or 1868! Same-sex marriage? Are you kidding?
This article first appeared in Salon.
But guns? Well, the founders spelled it "arms," but we know exactly what they had in mind! The right to walk around with your guns on your hip or slung over your shoulder because you need 'em for self-defense!
It's tempting to say that the justices handed down these two decisions because they could, but what they did and how they did it is even worse: Just a month after 19 elementary school children and their two teachers were shot dead with a semiautomatic military weapon of war, they mumbled about life and provided for the mechanics of death and. over a 24-hour period, set forth the new outlines of an obscene legal regimen.
They threw out 50 years of precedent and two of their previous decisions and concluded that since "the Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion," such a right does not exist. But the right to "keep and bear arms" is spelled out clear as a bell by the musket-owning founders in the wonderful Second Amendment.
For a constitutional right to be enjoyed by all citizens, according to the Roberts court, it must be old. Really old. If it didn't exist in, say, 1816, then it doesn't exist at all.
What the six so-called conservatives are relying on these days are two words not found in the Constitution: history and tradition. Both are suddenly seen as absolutely necessary in determining whether certain rights deserve to be preserved. The decisions are rife with phrases like, "We then canvassed the historical record, and found yet further confirmation," and you know what the "historical record" confirmed, don't you? Exactly what the majority wanted it to. It turns out that in order for a constitutional right to be enjoyed by American citizens, it must be old, and the older the better. If a right existed in the 18th and 19th centuries, well, this court is fine with it. But if that right wasn't enjoyed by the citizens of, say, 1816 — like the right to privacy, under which various other so-called modern rights exist, such as the right to purchase and use contraceptives, the right to have sex in the manner you choose, and the right to marry a person of your own sex — then those rights simply don't exist.
The majority leaves out the inconvenient truth that abortions, legal or otherwise, have been performed since the beginning of history as we know it, and the ownership of guns and other weapons of death and destruction have been restricted by class, income, social standing and political power for just as long.
The Thomas opinion on guns, along with concurrences, is 83 pages long. The Alito opinion on abortion, with concurrences, is 147 pages long. I would encourage you to read both decisions, if only to experience the blissful tsunami of their references to the way things were back in the 1700s and 1800s, but it's actually necessary only to take a look at a very few lines from the appendix to the Alito decision, which lists excerpts of the laws on the books forbidding abortion in the 37 states and 13 territories (!) that eventually became states from the 19th and 20th centuries. They are listed in chronological order by date, and just check out the first few:
- Missouri (1825)
- Illinois (1827)
- New York (1828)
- Ohio (1834)
- Indiana (1835)
- Maine (1840)
- Alabama (1841)
Citing laws from the 19th and early 20th centuries to justify what the majority is doing in the 21st century isn't just corrupt, it's disgusting, it's insulting, it's condescending, and it amounts to madness. The purpose of this list of horrific and antiquated laws and punishments for women who have abortions and people who perform them is to make the point that ending Roe in some sense returning to normal, because abortion has been illegal for a very long time practically everywhere. But the subtext is just as clear: You should be glad we're not turning the clock back to this.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
The language of the statutes is as brutal as the prison terms, running from six months to 10 years, that were prescribed for women who have abortions and anyone assisting them. I'll give you one excerpt just so you get a flavor of the "history and tradition" of abortion laws that the majority cites with obvious glee. This is from the Virginia statute of 1848:
Any free person who shall administer to any pregnant woman, any medicine, drug or substance whatever, or use or employ any instrument or other means with intent thereby to destroy the child with which such woman may be pregnant, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and shall thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, unless the same shall have been done to preserve the life of such woman, shall be punished, if the death of a quick child be thereby produced, by confinement in the penitentiary, for not less than one nor more than five years, or if the death of a child, not quick, be thereby produced, by confinement in the jail for not less than one nor more than twelve months.
That the Virginia law, which applies to "any free person," is racist on its face causes the Supreme Court majority no shame whatsoever. The entire opinion, along with its concurrences, is practically giddy with delight. Comparing their reversal of Roe v. Wade with the Warren court's reversal of Plessy v. Ferguson in its 1954 decision ending segregation in schools, the Republicans on the court tell us that up is down with smiles on their faces. Their reasoning doesn't even amount to intellectual dishonesty. It's legal terrorism.
It makes you wonder, doesn't it, how long we'll have to wait until a decision comes down from this court with an appendix approvingly listing Jim Crow laws in support of throwing out, oh, let's take a wild guess and say Brown v. Board of Education. After all, why start with boring stuff like affirmative action when we can go back and take care of this whole race thing at its source, huh?
It took the Civil War to end slavery. All it took to return to enslaving women by forcing them to bear an unwanted child and go through the pain and sometimes life-threatening act of giving birth was the six signatures of the Republican majority. For the likes of Thomas and Alito and the rest of them, if it was good enough for the founders, it's good enough for us.
Oh, by the way: here's another word that's not in the wonderful founding document we call the Constitution: Woman.
Performing an abortion is a felony in Utah after a "trigger" went into effect following the United States Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade, and the bill's sponsor had quite a take on the situation.
Rep. Karianne Lisonbee told reporters at a Capitol press conference about a text message she received urging her to hold men accountable, The Salt Lake Tribune reported Friday evening.
"I got a text message today saying I should seek to control men’s ejaculations and not women’s pregnancies ... I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen,” Lisonbee said.
The law, which as SB174, was certified by the legislature's general counsel on Friday.
Violating the abortion ban could result in 15 years in prison.
Women in Utah seeking an abortion can travel to the neighboring states of Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.
The newspaper reported the story under the headline, "GOP lawmaker says she trusts Utah women to control their ‘intake of semen’ as abortion trigger law goes into effect."