By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration received notification that Israel attacked Hamas in Doha, Qatar, a close U.S. ally. According to Leavitt, the bombing of a sovereign nation does not serve the goals of either country, although eliminating Hamas, which has exploited Gazans, is a worthy objective. The president views Qatar as a strong ally and wants the war to end, along with the release of hostages and the deceased. Qatar has already suspended mediation efforts, and the attack threatens to prolong the conflict and the detention of Israeli hostages.
Read the original article here
Amy Coney Barrett, when asked about the possibility of a third term for Donald Trump, offered an answer that, for many, was far from reassuring. Instead, it’s sparked a wave of concern. This is particularly troubling given the explicit clarity of the 22nd Amendment, which limits a president to two terms. The consensus seems to be that her response danced around the issue, leaving enough room for interpretation to raise red flags.
The core of the unease stems from a belief that conservatives, and by extension, potentially some members of the Supreme Court, may not be acting in good faith. This concern isn’t new, and it’s fueled by the suspicion that the existing legal frameworks might be manipulated or disregarded entirely to allow for a third term. The scenario painted by many is bleak: a refusal by red states to certify election results, claims of widespread fraud, and a contested election decided on the House floor, leading to a potentially destabilizing period. It’s January 6th with paper, as one commenter put it.
Many see parallels between Barrett’s response and the way some justices have handled cases in the past, particularly in the context of judicial confirmations. The concern is that her answer, reminiscent of the “settled law” argument used in the past, might be a carefully crafted way to avoid explicitly stating that a third term is unconstitutional, leaving a loophole for interpretation.
The answer itself, however, doesn’t necessarily warrant worry. When asked if the 22nd amendment is cut and dry, Barrett said, “Well, that’s, you know, that’s what the amendment says, right?” It’s certainly a fact, but it offers no comfort to those who don’t trust the Supreme Court.
The conversation quickly shifted from the legal technicalities to broader political implications. The presence of Trump 2028 merchandise on Trump’s official website further fueled the speculation. If Trump could run for a third term, why not Obama? Such a scenario only highlights the perception that the Supreme Court might be willing to tie itself into knots to justify a third term for Trump while denying the same opportunity to others.
Critics feel that the media has fallen into a trap of framing the issue around “can he do that?” rather than acknowledging the reality that Trump and his supporters may simply proceed with their agenda regardless of legal constraints. It raises the question of whether the existing institutions are capable of stopping a third term attempt.
Furthermore, there’s a general sentiment of distrust toward the Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump. The perception is that they may prioritize political loyalty over legal principles, leading to decisions that seem arbitrary and lack a solid legal foundation.
The core worry is that if Trump seeks a third term, and the legal system fails to stop him, the nation could face deep political division and even the possibility of another civil war. The situation is seen as so dire that it could potentially threaten the USA’s status as a global power. The implications extend far beyond the individuals involved; the very fabric of American democracy could be at stake.