Japan said on Friday that it will develop longer-range anti-ship missiles that can target ships around its southwestern Okinawa island chain, including near disputed islets in East China Sea on which China also lays claim. Japanese Defence Minister said that security environment around the islands had "become harsh" and that Japan needed to "respond"

"The security environment around our southwestern islands has become harsh. We have to respond to that in an appropriate way," Japanese Minister of Defence Nobuo Kishi said at a press briefing.

The missiles will allow Japan to expand anti-access area denial (A2AD), a strategy meant to stop foreign forces from operating close to Japanese territory.

The first major defence policy decision by Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga comes as Japan acquires air-launched missiles that could be used to hit missile sites in North Korea and is considering other strike weapons such as cruise missiles that could reach ground targets in China.

Japan has become concerned about Chinese activity in East China Sea. The incursions into Senkaku islands' waters has been a major worry as well. China calls these islands Diaoyu and has a dispute with Japan over them.

Japan said its new standoff missile will be based on a 200-km (124-mile) range truck-mounted anti-ship version already deployed on the Okinawa islands.

The ministry did not say what range it will have or when they will be deployed.

Japan also said on Friday it planned to put new powerful Aegis radars with at least three times the range of older Aegis systems on two new warships in order to reinforce defences against any ballistic missiles fired by North Korea.

"Defending Japan's southwestern islands requires longer-range systems because the islands cover a large area and Japan needs overlapping fields of fire," said Zack Cooper, a research fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute.

(With Reuters inputs)

Japan said on Friday that it will develop longer-range anti-ship missiles that can target ships around its southwestern Okinawa island chain, including near disputed islets in East China Sea on which China also lays claim.

Japan said on Friday that it will develop longer-range anti-ship missiles that can target ships around its southwestern Okinawa island chain, including near disputed islets in East China Sea on which China also lays claim. Japanese Defence Minister said that security environment around the islands had "become harsh" and that Japan needed to "respond" "The security environment around our southwestern islands has become harsh. We have to respond to that in an appropriate way," Japanese Minister of Defence Nobuo Kishi said at a press briefing. The missiles will allow Japan to expand anti-access area denial (A2AD), a strategy meant to stop foreign forces from operating close to Japanese territory. The first major defence policy decision by Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga comes as Japan acquires air-launched missiles that could be used to hit missile sites in North Korea and is considering other strike weapons such as cruise missiles that could reach ground targets in China. Japan has become concerned about Chinese activity in East China Sea. The incursions into Senkaku islands' waters has been a major worry as well. China calls these islands Diaoyu and has a dispute with Japan over them. Japan said its new standoff missile will be based on a 200-km (124-mile) range truck-mounted anti-ship version already deployed on the Okinawa islands. The ministry did not say what range it will have or when they will be deployed. Japan also said on Friday it planned to put new powerful Aegis radars with at least three times the range of older Aegis systems on two new warships in order to reinforce defences against any ballistic missiles fired by North Korea. "Defending Japan's southwestern islands requires longer-range systems because the islands cover a large area and Japan needs overlapping fields of fire," said Zack Cooper, a research fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute. (With Reuters inputs)

With eye on China, Japan to develop longer-range anti-ship missiles

Coronavirus pandemic is still a reality. There are lockdowns in many parts of the world. But with vaccines slowly making their way to the public, consumer demand for products is slowly increasing. However, a new problem may hit manufacturing of cars and electronic devices from smartphones to televisions and more.

There is a shortage of electronic chips.

Industry executives and analysts are mentioning several causes for this. These include bulk-buying by U.S. sanctions-hit Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies, a fire at a chip plant in Japan, coronavirus lockdowns in Southeast Asia, and a strike in France.

More fundamentally, however, there has been under-investment in 8-inch chip manufacturing plants owned mostly by Asian firms, which means they have struggled to ramp up production as demand for 5G phones, laptops and cars picked up faster than expected.

"For the whole electronics industry, we've been experiencing a shortage of components," said Donny Zhang, CEO of Shenzhen-based sourcing company Sand and Wave, who said he faced delays in obtaining a microcontroller unit that was key to a smart headphone product he was working on. He was quoted by Reuters.

"We were originally planning to complete production in one month, but now it looks like we'll need to do it in two."

Reuters quoted a source at a Japanese electronics component supplier who said it was seeing shortages of WiFi and Bluetooth chips and was expecting delays of more than 10 weeks.

The automotive industry in China, which flagged the issue earlier this month, is anticipating production at some Chinese carmakers to be affected in the first quarter of next year, according to a senior industry association official.

SURGING DEMAND

Consumer demand in China, especially for cars, has snapped back unexpectedly quickly from the coronavirus crisis, and orders for products such as laptops and mobile phones in regions still struggling with pandemic restrictions, such as Europe and the United States, have also picked up.

"Since (these products) all compete for the same fab (fabrication plant) resources the shortage is across all of these sectors and others as well. These are just the most apparent right now," said Kevin Anderson, a senior analyst at Omdia.

Dutch automotive chip supplier NXP Semiconductors has told customers it must raise prices on all products because of a "significant increase" in materials costs and a "severe shortage" of chips, Reuters reported this month.

"Business came back much faster than we expected," NXP CEO Kurt Sievers told German business daily Handelsblatt in an interview on Dec. 11. "Many customers ordered too late. As a result, we are not able to keep up in some areas."

Other short-term triggers for the chip shortage include stockpiling by telecoms giant Huawei ahead of mid-September when its suppliers had to comply with U.S. sanctions, CICC analyst Huang Leping said in a note on Dec. 11.

This was aggravated by Huawei's rivals such as Xiaomi seeking to gain market share by stepping up orders of components, he added.

Xiaomi and Huawei declined to comment.

(With Reuters inputs)

Coronavirus pandemic is still a reality. There are lockdowns in many parts of the world. But with vaccines slowly making their way to the public, consumer demand for products is slowly increasing.

Coronavirus pandemic is still a reality. There are lockdowns in many parts of the world. But with vaccines slowly making their way to the public, consumer demand for products is slowly increasing. However, a new problem may hit manufacturing of cars and electronic devices from smartphones to televisions and more. There is a shortage of electronic chips. Industry executives and analysts are mentioning several causes for this. These include bulk-buying by U.S. sanctions-hit Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies, a fire at a chip plant in Japan, coronavirus lockdowns in Southeast Asia, and a strike in France. More fundamentally, however, there has been under-investment in 8-inch chip manufacturing plants owned mostly by Asian firms, which means they have struggled to ramp up production as demand for 5G phones, laptops and cars picked up faster than expected. "For the whole electronics industry, we've been experiencing a shortage of components," said Donny Zhang, CEO of Shenzhen-based sourcing company Sand and Wave, who said he faced delays in obtaining a microcontroller unit that was key to a smart headphone product he was working on. He was quoted by Reuters. "We were originally planning to complete production in one month, but now it looks like we'll need to do it in two." Reuters quoted a source at a Japanese electronics component supplier who said it was seeing shortages of WiFi and Bluetooth chips and was expecting delays of more than 10 weeks. The automotive industry in China, which flagged the issue earlier this month, is anticipating production at some Chinese carmakers to be affected in the first quarter of next year, according to a senior industry association official. SURGING DEMAND Consumer demand in China, especially for cars, has snapped back unexpectedly quickly from the coronavirus crisis, and orders for products such as laptops and mobile phones in regions still struggling with pandemic restrictions, such as Europe and the United States, have also picked up. "Since (these products) all compete for the same fab (fabrication plant) resources the shortage is across all of these sectors and others as well. These are just the most apparent right now," said Kevin Anderson, a senior analyst at Omdia. Dutch automotive chip supplier NXP Semiconductors has told customers it must raise prices on all products because of a "significant increase" in materials costs and a "severe shortage" of chips, Reuters reported this month. "Business came back much faster than we expected," NXP CEO Kurt Sievers told German business daily Handelsblatt in an interview on Dec. 11. "Many customers ordered too late. As a result, we are not able to keep up in some areas." Other short-term triggers for the chip shortage include stockpiling by telecoms giant Huawei ahead of mid-September when its suppliers had to comply with U.S. sanctions, CICC analyst Huang Leping said in a note on Dec. 11. This was aggravated by Huawei's rivals such as Xiaomi seeking to gain market share by stepping up orders of components, he added. Xiaomi and Huawei declined to comment. (With Reuters inputs)

Chip shortage may hit car, electronics manufacture as consumer demand bounces back

Saudi Arabia kicked-off its three-phase coronavirus vaccination programme on Thursday. The country's health minister was among those inoculated after first shipment of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine arrived in the kingdom.

Along with Health Minister Tawfiq al-Rabiah, a woman in a wheelchair and another man were among the first to be administered the vaccine at a centre in Riyadh, an AFP photographer reported.

"This is the beginning of the end of the crisis," Rabiah told reporters.&nbsp;

In the first stage, people aged over 65 and those with chronic ailment or high risk of infection will receive the vaccine. In second stage, those aged over 50 will be given the vaccine.

Everyone else will be vaccinated in the third phase.

The phases have been decided by the health ministry. It has not specified the dates for each phase or how long the mass vaccination would take. The ministry has said that the vaccine would be "free for all citizens and residents"

Last week, the kingdom approved the use of the vaccine developed by US pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech, becoming the second Gulf country to do so after Bahrain.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-fda-advisory-panel-endorses-moderna-coronavirus-vaccine-350590">US FDA advisory panel endorses Moderna coronavirus vaccine</a>

Britain, Canada and the United States have also approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and have already launched mass inoculation campaigns. Neighbouring Jordan green-lighted the drug on Monday.

Saudi Arabia has so far recorded more than 360,000 novel coronavirus cases, including more than 6,000 deaths –- the highest among the Gulf Arab states. But the kingdom has also reported a high recovery rate.&nbsp;

(With AFP inputs)

Saudi Arabia kicked-off its three-phase coronavirus vaccination programme on Thursday. The country's health minister was among those inoculated after first shipment of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine arrived in the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia kicked-off its three-phase coronavirus vaccination programme on Thursday. The country's health minister was among those inoculated after first shipment of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine arrived in the kingdom. Along with Health Minister Tawfiq al-Rabiah, a woman in a wheelchair and another man were among the first to be administered the vaccine at a centre in Riyadh, an AFP photographer reported. "This is the beginning of the end of the crisis," Rabiah told reporters. In the first stage, people aged over 65 and those with chronic ailment or high risk of infection will receive the vaccine. In second stage, those aged over 50 will be given the vaccine. Everyone else will be vaccinated in the third phase. The phases have been decided by the health ministry. It has not specified the dates for each phase or how long the mass vaccination would take. The ministry has said that the vaccine would be "free for all citizens and residents" Last week, the kingdom approved the use of the vaccine developed by US pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech, becoming the second Gulf country to do so after Bahrain. Also Read | US FDA advisory panel endorses Moderna coronavirus vaccine Britain, Canada and the United States have also approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and have already launched mass inoculation campaigns. Neighbouring Jordan green-lighted the drug on Monday. Saudi Arabia has so far recorded more than 360,000 novel coronavirus cases, including more than 6,000 deaths –- the highest among the Gulf Arab states. But the kingdom has also reported a high recovery rate. (With AFP inputs)

Saudi Arabia begins coronavirus vaccination campaign

Snowstorm lashes US east coast; New York hit

Today in history: Wright brothers take-off, Bhagat Singh assassinates Saunders, and more

World powers party to Iran nuclear deal struck by Brack Obama administration on Wednesday went into a huddle to diffuse tension and to decide plan of action under mounting pressure from Iranian breaches and US sanctions. Representatives of China, France, Russia, Iran, Germany and Britain also discussed the uncertainty before US President-elect Joe Biden takes office. The discussion took place via video conference.

During the discussion, one of the diplomats urged Iran to stick to deal.

Nuclear deal with Iran was struck by these world powers after former US President Barack Obama's initiative in 2015. However, Donald Trump withdrew America from the deal. Remaining countries are still party to the pact.

US President-elect Joe Biden has indicated that US would rejoin the deal.

Senior EU foreign affairs official Helga Schmid issued a brief statement following the talks she chaired.

"Participants discussed... how to ensure the full and effective implementation of the agreement by all sides in light of existing challenges," it said.

While she did not say what those challenges were, the deal has unravelled steadily since Trump withdrew from it in 2018 and went on to impose crippling economic sanctions on Iran.&nbsp;

Tehran has retaliated by progressively abandoning limits on its nuclear activity laid down in the deal, most recently planning to install advanced centrifuges at Iran's main nuclear enrichment plant in Natanz.

World powers party to Iran nuclear deal struck by Brack Obama administration on Wednesday went into a huddle to diffuse tension and to decide plan of action under mounting pressure from Iranian breaches and US sanctions.

World powers party to Iran nuclear deal struck by Brack Obama administration on Wednesday went into a huddle to diffuse tension and to decide plan of action under mounting pressure from Iranian breaches and US sanctions. Representatives of China, France, Russia, Iran, Germany and Britain also discussed the uncertainty before US President-elect Joe Biden takes office. The discussion took place via video conference. During the discussion, one of the diplomats urged Iran to stick to deal. Nuclear deal with Iran was struck by these world powers after former US President Barack Obama's initiative in 2015. However, Donald Trump withdrew America from the deal. Remaining countries are still party to the pact. US President-elect Joe Biden has indicated that US would rejoin the deal. Senior EU foreign affairs official Helga Schmid issued a brief statement following the talks she chaired. "Participants discussed... how to ensure the full and effective implementation of the agreement by all sides in light of existing challenges," it said. While she did not say what those challenges were, the deal has unravelled steadily since Trump withdrew from it in 2018 and went on to impose crippling economic sanctions on Iran. Tehran has retaliated by progressively abandoning limits on its nuclear activity laid down in the deal, most recently planning to install advanced centrifuges at Iran's main nuclear enrichment plant in Natanz.

Iran nuclear deal: World powers try to diffuse tension

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday said that Britain and Eurpean Union were closer to sealing Brexit trade deal but she added that it was still unclear whether talks would succeed. UK is set to transition out of the world's largest trading bloc at the end of the year and time is short for both sides to agree over a trade deal.

UK PM Boris Johnson said he hoped the EU would "see sense" and agree a deal that respected Britain`s sovereignty, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the bloc favoured agreement.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament: "I cannot tell you whether there will be a deal or not. But I can tell you that there is a path to an agreement now. The path may be very narrow but it is there."

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/intense-talks-on-a-post-brexit-trade-deal-continue-eu-chief-says-next-days-decisive-350154">Intense talks on a post-Brexit trade deal continue, EU chief says 'next days decisive'</a>

EU chief added that there were issues to be resolved.

"We have found a way forward on most issues but two issues still remain outstanding: the level playing field and fisheries," she said. "Issues linked to governance now have largely been resolved. The next days are going to be decisive."

A trade deal between UK and the EU would be necessary in order to keep an estimated one trillion dollars of annual trade free of tariffs and quotas beyond December 31.

(With Reuters inputs)

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday said that Britain and Eurpean Union were closer to sealing Brexit trade deal but she added that it was still unclear whether talks would succeed.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday said that Britain and Eurpean Union were closer to sealing Brexit trade deal but she added that it was still unclear whether talks would succeed. UK is set to transition out of the world's largest trading bloc at the end of the year and time is short for both sides to agree over a trade deal. UK PM Boris Johnson said he hoped the EU would "see sense" and agree a deal that respected Britain`s sovereignty, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the bloc favoured agreement. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament: "I cannot tell you whether there will be a deal or not. But I can tell you that there is a path to an agreement now. The path may be very narrow but it is there." Also Read | Intense talks on a post-Brexit trade deal continue, EU chief says 'next days decisive' EU chief added that there were issues to be resolved. "We have found a way forward on most issues but two issues still remain outstanding: the level playing field and fisheries," she said. "Issues linked to governance now have largely been resolved. The next days are going to be decisive." A trade deal between UK and the EU would be necessary in order to keep an estimated one trillion dollars of annual trade free of tariffs and quotas beyond December 31. (With Reuters inputs)

Closer to Brexit trade deal but success unclear, says EU chief in European Parliament

As Democrats look to the incoming Biden administration to reverse much of President Donald Trump’s work, the conservative imprint he has left on the federal courts is only deepening.

Much attention in recent months has focused on the Supreme Court and its newly appointed justice, Amy Coney Barrett. But an analysis of decisions by the country’s appellate bench — where nearly all contested federal litigation ends — shows the transformation of the judiciary under Trump.

Early this year, The New York Times reviewed more than 10,000 published decisions and dissents during the first three years of the Trump administration. It found that the president’s picks for the appeals courts were more likely than past Republican appointees to disagree with peers selected by Democrats and more likely to agree with their Republican colleagues, suggesting they were more consistently conservative.

An updated analysis of more than 1,700 opinions published over the first six months of the year shows that the trend has intensified as the judges have established a larger body of work.

“It’s more polarized,” said Joshua Fischman, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “We’ve seen a huge conservative shift. A lot of these judges are very young, and they’ll be there for a long time.”

Trump has named 53 of the 165 judges on the nation’s regional appeals courts, lifetime appointments that will have a vast and enduring effect. Most cases on the courts are decided unanimously by three-person panels, and dissent is relatively rare. But as a group, his selections were nearly four times as likely to clash with colleagues appointed by Democratic presidents as those appointed by Republicans. Judges nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush showed the same tendency, but to half the extent.

The judges who exhibited the pattern included some who had been under consideration for the Supreme Court and some who had deep political connections on Capitol Hill. One had done legal work for Trump’s 2016 campaign and later, as acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division, was in charge of defending high-profile presidential policies that came under attack in the courts.

Yet while Trump has made clear that he expects loyalty from his judicial appointees, they have ruled against him in lawsuits that his campaign brought regarding the 2020 election. Most notably, Barrett last week joined her fellow justices in denying an effort by Texas to overturn the Biden victory in four battleground states.

At the appeals level, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the 3rd Circuit, nominated in 2017, wrote a blistering decision last month rejecting the Trump campaign’s election challenge in Pennsylvania. And Judge Andrew L. Brasher of the 11th Circuit, appointed this year, wrote an opinion this month rebuffing the campaign’s effort to bypass the lower federal court and decertify Georgia’s election results.

Fischman said that to rule differently would have been to flout the law. “It’s completely against judicial culture,” he said. “They just could not be taken seriously as judges if they sided with Trump here.”

Bibas and Brasher serve on courts that Trump has flipped toward conservative majorities. While Bibas was not among the most disputatious of the appointees, according to the analysis, he dissented in a significant gun-rights case in which two Democratic appointees upheld New Jersey’s limit on large-capacity magazines.

“We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights,” he wrote. “We may not water it down and balance it away based on our own sense of wise policy.”

Barrett — who until October served in Indiana on the 7th Circuit, where there is a particular culture of agreement — also followed the pattern, striking out against Democratic-named colleagues over 7% of the time and against Republican appointees 2.5% of the time, the analysis showed.

In one such case, she disagreed that a man who had admitted to killing his wife was denied the right to a lawyer when a judge questioned him. (Her position later held sway when the case was considered by a full slate of 7th Circuit judges.)

On the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Neomi Rao, confirmed to the bench just last year, has already made waves. Of four cases with published opinions that she participated in alongside two Democratic appointees, she dissented three times, the analysis showed. In June, she wrote the majority opinion ordering a lower-court judge to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser.

In a case decided in May, Judge Joel M. Carson III of the 10th Circuit dissented as his Democratic-appointed peers ruled against a challenge to the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, the attachments that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire in sustained bursts. That case is now under consideration by the full circuit.

And this month, Judge Lawrence J.C. VanDyke broke from his colleagues on the 9th Circuit, objecting as they ruled against the Trump administration and called an immigration policy favoring wealthy immigrants for green cards “arbitrary and capricious.” VanDyke was among the handful of Trump nominees at the appellate level whose qualifications were questioned by the American Bar Association.

Not all the judges fit the pattern: Many serve on courts with a majority of Republican appointees, and some belong to circuits with a stronger culture of consensus. But The Times found that Trump appointees were more likely to be involved in a case featuring dissent even when those factors were accounted for.

The analysis examined how often and with whom the judges agreed but not the ideological content of their opinions. Though the cases sometimes touched on big policy debates — abortion, gun rights, policing — they more often concerned matters like employment disputes and criminal and immigration court appeals.

The Trump administration’s work in swiftly filling vacant judgeships has depended heavily on Republicans in the Senate, particularly Mitch McConnell, the majority leader. He has encouraged eligible federal judges to retire to create more openings and has led a confirmation process in which Republicans shunned compromise and sought unbending conservatives and reliable political allies to populate the bench.

As of this month, if pending nominations are taken into account, President-elect Joe Biden stands to inherit fewer than 25 openings across the federal judiciary, compared with the more than 100 that carried over to Trump from Barack Obama's administration.

Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee have appealed to Lindsey Graham, its Republican chairman through the end of the year, asking him not to proceed with any more nominations before Biden is sworn in.

But even with a Democrat in the White House, the Republicans will be in a position to continue their push for conservative appointees, or at least block liberal ones, unless Democrats gain control of the Senate by winning both seats in next month’s special election in Georgia.

“A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election,” McConnell said in October as Barrett was confirmed. “They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

As Democrats look to the incoming Biden administration to reverse much of President Donald Trump’s work, the conservative imprint he has left on the federal courts is only deepening.

As Democrats look to the incoming Biden administration to reverse much of President Donald Trump’s work, the conservative imprint he has left on the federal courts is only deepening. Much attention in recent months has focused on the Supreme Court and its newly appointed justice, Amy Coney Barrett. But an analysis of decisions by the country’s appellate bench — where nearly all contested federal litigation ends — shows the transformation of the judiciary under Trump. Early this year, The New York Times reviewed more than 10,000 published decisions and dissents during the first three years of the Trump administration. It found that the president’s picks for the appeals courts were more likely than past Republican appointees to disagree with peers selected by Democrats and more likely to agree with their Republican colleagues, suggesting they were more consistently conservative. An updated analysis of more than 1,700 opinions published over the first six months of the year shows that the trend has intensified as the judges have established a larger body of work. “It’s more polarized,” said Joshua Fischman, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “We’ve seen a huge conservative shift. A lot of these judges are very young, and they’ll be there for a long time.” Trump has named 53 of the 165 judges on the nation’s regional appeals courts, lifetime appointments that will have a vast and enduring effect. Most cases on the courts are decided unanimously by three-person panels, and dissent is relatively rare. But as a group, his selections were nearly four times as likely to clash with colleagues appointed by Democratic presidents as those appointed by Republicans. Judges nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush showed the same tendency, but to half the extent. The judges who exhibited the pattern included some who had been under consideration for the Supreme Court and some who had deep political connections on Capitol Hill. One had done legal work for Trump’s 2016 campaign and later, as acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division, was in charge of defending high-profile presidential policies that came under attack in the courts. Yet while Trump has made clear that he expects loyalty from his judicial appointees, they have ruled against him in lawsuits that his campaign brought regarding the 2020 election. Most notably, Barrett last week joined her fellow justices in denying an effort by Texas to overturn the Biden victory in four battleground states. At the appeals level, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the 3rd Circuit, nominated in 2017, wrote a blistering decision last month rejecting the Trump campaign’s election challenge in Pennsylvania. And Judge Andrew L. Brasher of the 11th Circuit, appointed this year, wrote an opinion this month rebuffing the campaign’s effort to bypass the lower federal court and decertify Georgia’s election results. Fischman said that to rule differently would have been to flout the law. “It’s completely against judicial culture,” he said. “They just could not be taken seriously as judges if they sided with Trump here.” Bibas and Brasher serve on courts that Trump has flipped toward conservative majorities. While Bibas was not among the most disputatious of the appointees, according to the analysis, he dissented in a significant gun-rights case in which two Democratic appointees upheld New Jersey’s limit on large-capacity magazines. “We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights,” he wrote. “We may not water it down and balance it away based on our own sense of wise policy.” Barrett — who until October served in Indiana on the 7th Circuit, where there is a particular culture of agreement — also followed the pattern, striking out against Democratic-named colleagues over 7% of the time and against Republican appointees 2.5% of the time, the analysis showed. In one such case, she disagreed that a man who had admitted to killing his wife was denied the right to a lawyer when a judge questioned him. (Her position later held sway when the case was considered by a full slate of 7th Circuit judges.) On the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Neomi Rao, confirmed to the bench just last year, has already made waves. Of four cases with published opinions that she participated in alongside two Democratic appointees, she dissented three times, the analysis showed. In June, she wrote the majority opinion ordering a lower-court judge to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser. In a case decided in May, Judge Joel M. Carson III of the 10th Circuit dissented as his Democratic-appointed peers ruled against a challenge to the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, the attachments that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire in sustained bursts. That case is now under consideration by the full circuit. And this month, Judge Lawrence J.C. VanDyke broke from his colleagues on the 9th Circuit, objecting as they ruled against the Trump administration and called an immigration policy favoring wealthy immigrants for green cards “arbitrary and capricious.” VanDyke was among the handful of Trump nominees at the appellate level whose qualifications were questioned by the American Bar Association. Not all the judges fit the pattern: Many serve on courts with a majority of Republican appointees, and some belong to circuits with a stronger culture of consensus. But The Times found that Trump appointees were more likely to be involved in a case featuring dissent even when those factors were accounted for. The analysis examined how often and with whom the judges agreed but not the ideological content of their opinions. Though the cases sometimes touched on big policy debates — abortion, gun rights, policing — they more often concerned matters like employment disputes and criminal and immigration court appeals. The Trump administration’s work in swiftly filling vacant judgeships has depended heavily on Republicans in the Senate, particularly Mitch McConnell, the majority leader. He has encouraged eligible federal judges to retire to create more openings and has led a confirmation process in which Republicans shunned compromise and sought unbending conservatives and reliable political allies to populate the bench. As of this month, if pending nominations are taken into account, President-elect Joe Biden stands to inherit fewer than 25 openings across the federal judiciary, compared with the more than 100 that carried over to Trump from Barack Obama's administration. Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee have appealed to Lindsey Graham, its Republican chairman through the end of the year, asking him not to proceed with any more nominations before Biden is sworn in. But even with a Democrat in the White House, the Republicans will be in a position to continue their push for conservative appointees, or at least block liberal ones, unless Democrats gain control of the Senate by winning both seats in next month’s special election in Georgia. “A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election,” McConnell said in October as Barrett was confirmed. “They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

As Trump leaves the White House, his imprint on the judiciary deepens

Two days after the Electoral College confirmed President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, a Senate committee provided a platform Wednesday for another round of specious legal arguments and falsehoods about widespread voter fraud that have been repeatedly rejected by courts across the country.

The hearing was the latest effort by the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, to amplify the claims and concerns of President Donald Trump. Johnson previously used his committee to investigate Biden’s son, Hunter, and to elevate fringe theories about the coronavirus pandemic.

Though Johnson conceded in his opening remarks that fraudulent voting did not affect the outcome of the election, he said that “lax enforcement, denying effective bipartisan observation of the complete election process, and failure to be fully transparent or conduct reasonable audits has led to heightened suspicion.”

“The fraud happened. The election in many ways was stolen,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said at one point.

Those claims are false. The Trump campaign has failed to provide evidence in a number of lawsuits that Republican observers were barred from witnessing vote tabulating. Recounts and postelection audits in several battleground states have either concluded and reconfirmed . Biden’s victory, or are underway. There is no evidence that the election was “stolen.”

Witnesses called by Johnson included three men — two lawyers for Trump and a Pennsylvania state representative — who have unsuccessfully sought to overturn election results. They also included Ken Starr, who represented Trump during the impeachment hearing this year.

Even as several witnesses insisted there was proof of widespread fraud — and as their claims were echoed in viral posts on social media — Christopher C. Krebs, the former head of the government’s cybersecurity agency, testified that the election was the most secure in American history.

James Troupis, a lawyer for Trump in Wisconsin, claimed that 200,000 people had voted improperly in the state. He argued that accepting absentee ballots in Dane and Milwaukee counties — two Democratic bastions — before Election Day violated state law, and that those votes should be thrown out.

But the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the case Monday, and a conservative justice said that one of Troupis’ four claims was “meritless” and that time had run out on the other three. Justices also noted during the trial that Troupis was not seeking to throw out ballots in other counties that used the same procedures but that Trump had won.

A Republican member of the state’s elections commission observed this month that the Trump campaign “has not made any claims of fraud in this election” but rather leveled “disputes in matters of law.”

Similarly, Trump’s campaign lawyer in Nevada used the hearing to rehash false claims and arguments rejected by courts in the state. The lawyer, Jesse Binnall, said that the campaign’s experts had identified “130,000 unique instances of voter fraud” in Nevada and that their evidence had “never been refuted, only ignored.”

A district court in Nevada rejected those claims and dismissed the lawsuit this month, and the Nevada Supreme Court upheld that decision last week.

The lower court said that it found “no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 general election in Nevada was affected by fraud” and that the campaign’s expert testimony “was of little to no value.” Binnall and others on the legal team “did not prove under any standard of proof” their claims about double voting, deceased people voting, and noncitizens and nonresidents voting, the court wrote.

The state’s highest court, in upholding that decision, wrote that it asked the Trump campaign to identify findings from the district court that it took issue with, but “appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none.”

State Rep. Francis Ryan of Pennsylvania also repeated a number of claims that appeared in Texas’ lawsuit seeking to toss out election results in Pennsylvania and other swing states. The Supreme Court rejected that lawsuit last week.

Ryan said that a data portal initially and erroneously listed 508,112 ballots counted in Philadelphia County despite only 432,873 ballots being issued to voters. He then acknowledged that the 500,000 figure was corrected later.

He also claimed that the state reported that 3.1 million mail-in ballots were sent out, but the number was 2.7 million “the day before the election.” Pennsylvania, in a filing responding to the lawsuit, noted that Ryan’s analysis was “fundamentally faulty” and that the 3.1 million figure included 2.7 million mail-in ballots and 400,000 absentee ballots.

Additionally, Ryan expressed skepticism that more than 1,500 voters reported being more than 100 years old. But that figure includes dozens of instances where a birthday is entered as Jan. 1, 1900, as a placeholder. It is also consistent with reports from the census and the Centers for Disease for Control and Prevention on the number of people that age in Pennsylvania and the United States.

Starr separately argued that Pennsylvania “flagrantly violated” state law in expanding mail-in voting. A lawsuit making the same point was rejected by the state’s Supreme Court, which was then upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Johnson and Starr also cited Democratic officials who had previously raised concerns about election security to suggest that Republicans were being unfairly maligned in their efforts to cast light on the issue.

“I don’t recall the media or anyone else accusing these eight congressional Democrats of indulging in, quote, quackery and conspiracy theories, unquote,” Johnson said as he read passages from three letters written by Democratic senators.

Those three letters were about potential foreign efforts to hack election security software and the involvement of private equity firms in companies that make election equipment.

Starr repeatedly referred to a 2005 commission led by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III that issued a “warning” about mail-in ballots.

But Carter urged the expansion of mail-in voting this year and his foundation, the Carter Center, noted that the 2005 report found “there was little evidence of voter fraud” in places with adequate safeguards.

Krebs cited and debunked a number of false conspiracy theories and rumors, including those advanced by Trump and his allies.

The claim about “a CIA supercomputer and program that were flipping votes throughout the country, and in Georgia specifically” — pushed by Sidney Powell, a former lawyer for Trump — is disproved by the paper ballots, he said.

“You can always go back to the receipts. You can check your math, and Georgia did that three times, and the outcomes were consistent over and over and over again,” Krebs said.

Krebs also addressed a false claim, repeated by Trump, of a 68% error rate in vote counting in Antrim County in Michigan. But that, he said, was based on a misinterpretation of the programming language.

“In fact, it was not that there was 68% of the votes that were errors; it was that the election management system’s logs had recorded 68% of the logs themselves had some sort of alert rate,” Krebs said. “The problem is the report itself doesn’t actually specify any of those errors except for one.”

Krebs added: “We have to stop this. It is undermining confidence in democracy.”

Two days after the Electoral College confirmed President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, a Senate committee provided a platform Wednesday for another round of specious legal arguments and falsehoods about widespread voter fraud that have been repeatedly rejected by courts across the country.

Two days after the Electoral College confirmed President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, a Senate committee provided a platform Wednesday for another round of specious legal arguments and falsehoods about widespread voter fraud that have been repeatedly rejected by courts across the country. The hearing was the latest effort by the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, to amplify the claims and concerns of President Donald Trump. Johnson previously used his committee to investigate Biden’s son, Hunter, and to elevate fringe theories about the coronavirus pandemic. Though Johnson conceded in his opening remarks that fraudulent voting did not affect the outcome of the election, he said that “lax enforcement, denying effective bipartisan observation of the complete election process, and failure to be fully transparent or conduct reasonable audits has led to heightened suspicion.” “The fraud happened. The election in many ways was stolen,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said at one point. Those claims are false. The Trump campaign has failed to provide evidence in a number of lawsuits that Republican observers were barred from witnessing vote tabulating. Recounts and postelection audits in several battleground states have either concluded and reconfirmed . Biden’s victory, or are underway. There is no evidence that the election was “stolen.” Witnesses called by Johnson included three men — two lawyers for Trump and a Pennsylvania state representative — who have unsuccessfully sought to overturn election results. They also included Ken Starr, who represented Trump during the impeachment hearing this year. Even as several witnesses insisted there was proof of widespread fraud — and as their claims were echoed in viral posts on social media — Christopher C. Krebs, the former head of the government’s cybersecurity agency, testified that the election was the most secure in American history. James Troupis, a lawyer for Trump in Wisconsin, claimed that 200,000 people had voted improperly in the state. He argued that accepting absentee ballots in Dane and Milwaukee counties — two Democratic bastions — before Election Day violated state law, and that those votes should be thrown out. But the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the case Monday, and a conservative justice said that one of Troupis’ four claims was “meritless” and that time had run out on the other three. Justices also noted during the trial that Troupis was not seeking to throw out ballots in other counties that used the same procedures but that Trump had won. A Republican member of the state’s elections commission observed this month that the Trump campaign “has not made any claims of fraud in this election” but rather leveled “disputes in matters of law.” Similarly, Trump’s campaign lawyer in Nevada used the hearing to rehash false claims and arguments rejected by courts in the state. The lawyer, Jesse Binnall, said that the campaign’s experts had identified “130,000 unique instances of voter fraud” in Nevada and that their evidence had “never been refuted, only ignored.” A district court in Nevada rejected those claims and dismissed the lawsuit this month, and the Nevada Supreme Court upheld that decision last week. The lower court said that it found “no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 general election in Nevada was affected by fraud” and that the campaign’s expert testimony “was of little to no value.” Binnall and others on the legal team “did not prove under any standard of proof” their claims about double voting, deceased people voting, and noncitizens and nonresidents voting, the court wrote. The state’s highest court, in upholding that decision, wrote that it asked the Trump campaign to identify findings from the district court that it took issue with, but “appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none.” State Rep. Francis Ryan of Pennsylvania also repeated a number of claims that appeared in Texas’ lawsuit seeking to toss out election results in Pennsylvania and other swing states. The Supreme Court rejected that lawsuit last week. Ryan said that a data portal initially and erroneously listed 508,112 ballots counted in Philadelphia County despite only 432,873 ballots being issued to voters. He then acknowledged that the 500,000 figure was corrected later. He also claimed that the state reported that 3.1 million mail-in ballots were sent out, but the number was 2.7 million “the day before the election.” Pennsylvania, in a filing responding to the lawsuit, noted that Ryan’s analysis was “fundamentally faulty” and that the 3.1 million figure included 2.7 million mail-in ballots and 400,000 absentee ballots. Additionally, Ryan expressed skepticism that more than 1,500 voters reported being more than 100 years old. But that figure includes dozens of instances where a birthday is entered as Jan. 1, 1900, as a placeholder. It is also consistent with reports from the census and the Centers for Disease for Control and Prevention on the number of people that age in Pennsylvania and the United States. Starr separately argued that Pennsylvania “flagrantly violated” state law in expanding mail-in voting. A lawsuit making the same point was rejected by the state’s Supreme Court, which was then upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Johnson and Starr also cited Democratic officials who had previously raised concerns about election security to suggest that Republicans were being unfairly maligned in their efforts to cast light on the issue. “I don’t recall the media or anyone else accusing these eight congressional Democrats of indulging in, quote, quackery and conspiracy theories, unquote,” Johnson said as he read passages from three letters written by Democratic senators. Those three letters were about potential foreign efforts to hack election security software and the involvement of private equity firms in companies that make election equipment. Starr repeatedly referred to a 2005 commission led by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III that issued a “warning” about mail-in ballots. But Carter urged the expansion of mail-in voting this year and his foundation, the Carter Center, noted that the 2005 report found “there was little evidence of voter fraud” in places with adequate safeguards. Krebs cited and debunked a number of false conspiracy theories and rumors, including those advanced by Trump and his allies. The claim about “a CIA supercomputer and program that were flipping votes throughout the country, and in Georgia specifically” — pushed by Sidney Powell, a former lawyer for Trump — is disproved by the paper ballots, he said. “You can always go back to the receipts. You can check your math, and Georgia did that three times, and the outcomes were consistent over and over and over again,” Krebs said. Krebs also addressed a false claim, repeated by Trump, of a 68% error rate in vote counting in Antrim County in Michigan. But that, he said, was based on a misinterpretation of the programming language. “In fact, it was not that there was 68% of the votes that were errors; it was that the election management system’s logs had recorded 68% of the logs themselves had some sort of alert rate,” Krebs said. “The problem is the report itself doesn’t actually specify any of those errors except for one.” Krebs added: “We have to stop this. It is undermining confidence in democracy.”

Senate Committee continues false claims of fraud

2020 has given us a lot to clutch our heads and scream. While coronavirus pandemic was the major reason, the year will live in infamy due to many horrible reasons. And just as when we thought we were slipping past its grip, the news has arrived that five asteroids are slated to make a close call to Earth in a single week. And two of them are going to flyby at a distance less than that between Earth and the Moon

Remember what happened last time an asteroid struck Earth? It wiped out 95 per cent of life on the planet including the dinosaurs who were the dominant species then.

No prize for guessing which dominant species on Earth will be wiped out now if a space rock is to strike our planet at a speed of thousands of kilometres per hour

So let's take a look

Asteroid 2020 XF4 is just 11 metres across but its superspeed gives it a deadly momentum. It's a good thing then it is going to miss the Earth. However, it will come closer to Earth than the Moon. It will fly past Earth at a distance of 343,047 km. Distance between Earth and the Moon is 386,000 km

Asteroid 2020 VY1 is slightly bigger. This 24-metre space-rock will fly by at a distance of 5 million kilometres.

Then there is asteroid 2020 XS5 which will hurtle past Earth at distance of 2 million km&nbsp;

Watch: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/watch-nasa-captures-himalayan-mountains-delhis-city-lights-from-space-350259">NASA captures Himalayan mountains, Delhi's city lights from space</a>

However, asteroid 2020 XX3 will come much much closer. It will give Earth a miss at only 57 thousand kilometres. This distance may appear to be a lot but considering measurements in Space, this is not much.

Finally, asteroid 2020 XF3 will pass by Earth. But it will cut a wide berth at 6.9 million kilometres.

Let's hope the year 2020 does not have any more surprises.

2020 has given us a lot to clutch our heads and scream. While coronavirus pandemic was the major reason, the year will live in infamy due to many horrible reasons.

2020 has given us a lot to clutch our heads and scream. While coronavirus pandemic was the major reason, the year will live in infamy due to many horrible reasons. And just as when we thought we were slipping past its grip, the news has arrived that five asteroids are slated to make a close call to Earth in a single week. And two of them are going to flyby at a distance less than that between Earth and the Moon Remember what happened last time an asteroid struck Earth? It wiped out 95 per cent of life on the planet including the dinosaurs who were the dominant species then. No prize for guessing which dominant species on Earth will be wiped out now if a space rock is to strike our planet at a speed of thousands of kilometres per hour So let's take a look Asteroid 2020 XF4 is just 11 metres across but its superspeed gives it a deadly momentum. It's a good thing then it is going to miss the Earth. However, it will come closer to Earth than the Moon. It will fly past Earth at a distance of 343,047 km. Distance between Earth and the Moon is 386,000 km Asteroid 2020 VY1 is slightly bigger. This 24-metre space-rock will fly by at a distance of 5 million kilometres. Then there is asteroid 2020 XS5 which will hurtle past Earth at distance of 2 million km Watch: NASA captures Himalayan mountains, Delhi's city lights from space However, asteroid 2020 XX3 will come much much closer. It will give Earth a miss at only 57 thousand kilometres. This distance may appear to be a lot but considering measurements in Space, this is not much. Finally, asteroid 2020 XF3 will pass by Earth. But it will cut a wide berth at 6.9 million kilometres. Let's hope the year 2020 does not have any more surprises.

Five asteroids to make close call to Earth this week

There are plenty of 'ghost ships' in the oceans. There are countless tales of mysterious disappearances of crews with ships and boats drifting aimlessly in high seas for decades. There is a certain enigma and scare attached to these cases.

A miniature version of such famous incidents took place in Pacific Ocean when a 'ghost boat' drifted ashore on Marshall Islands.

Marshall Islands are far from any large landmass and are sparsely populated. The sudden appearance of this boat with no one onboard created a stir.

But the authorities were in for a surprise when they checked the vessel thoroughly.

As per news reports, 649 Kg (1430 Pounds) of Cocaine was found to have been stashed on the fibreglass boat.

CNN reported that Cocaine packages were marked with the letters 'KW'. The cocaine was worth USD 80 million. This is the largest amount of cocaine ever to wash ashore on Marshall Islands.

Authorities believe that the boat drifted from South or Central America and was at sea for two years before being discovered in Marshall Islands.

There are plenty of 'ghost ships' in the oceans. There are countless tales of mysterious disappearances of crews with ships and boats drifting aimlessly in high seas for decades.

There are plenty of 'ghost ships' in the oceans. There are countless tales of mysterious disappearances of crews with ships and boats drifting aimlessly in high seas for decades. There is a certain enigma and scare attached to these cases. A miniature version of such famous incidents took place in Pacific Ocean when a 'ghost boat' drifted ashore on Marshall Islands. Marshall Islands are far from any large landmass and are sparsely populated. The sudden appearance of this boat with no one onboard created a stir. But the authorities were in for a surprise when they checked the vessel thoroughly. As per news reports, 649 Kg (1430 Pounds) of Cocaine was found to have been stashed on the fibreglass boat. CNN reported that Cocaine packages were marked with the letters 'KW'. The cocaine was worth USD 80 million. This is the largest amount of cocaine ever to wash ashore on Marshall Islands. Authorities believe that the boat drifted from South or Central America and was at sea for two years before being discovered in Marshall Islands.

'Ghost boat' washes ashore with cocaine worth USD 80 million

As hardline Islamists flex their muscles against liquor stores in Baghdad, a bigger story is emerging. The liquor shops owned by Christiansd and Yazidis are being targetted. Out of the 14 alcohol shops firebombed in past two months, most were owned by these minorities.

Some are suspecting turf war for control of the lucrative niche trade in Muslim majority Iraq. 
&nbsp; 
The shops have been firebombed in the middle of the night or just before dawn, with three simultaneous attacks in different districts Monday night alone.&nbsp;

Andre, an Iraqi Christian, said his shop was firebombed a few weeks ago by two people on a motorcycle just before dawn, according to the store's security camera footage.&nbsp;

He said it had cost him thousands of dollars to replace the lost merchandise and repair the shop.

"These groups want the last of the Christians to leave the country. They're targeting us," Andre told AFP, as his brother stacked new bottles of whisky on restored shelves.

He blamed security forces for negligence, saying a police patrol that had been deployed nearby left its post for hours, which gave the attackers a window of opportunity.&nbsp;

"Why doesn't the government arrest them?" Andre asked angrily, saying he had even provided authorities with the license plate number of the attacking vehicle from their CCTV footage.&nbsp;

The attackers had "time to place the explosives, take pictures before and after and publish them on Facebook," he said.

Another business owner, speaking on condition of anonymity in fear of reprisal attacks, said it was an attempt to crush the shrinking community of Iraqi secularists.&nbsp;

"We are all that's left of a liberal lifestyle. There are attempts to kill this ancient side of Baghdad -- if they win, Baghdad will have lost its liberal side," he said.&nbsp;

In recent weeks, an array of Islamist groups have ramped up their rhetoric against Baghdad's liquor stores and other establishments that they insist are violating religious edicts against drinking and other trades considered sinful.

One such group, "Rubu Allah" or "God's gang," claimed responsiblity for raiding a massage parlour in the heart of Baghdad and physically assaulting the women inside.

As hardline Islamists flex their muscles against liquor stores in Baghdad, a bigger story is emerging. The liquor shops owned by Christiansd and Yazidis are being targetted.

As hardline Islamists flex their muscles against liquor stores in Baghdad, a bigger story is emerging. The liquor shops owned by Christiansd and Yazidis are being targetted. Out of the 14 alcohol shops firebombed in past two months, most were owned by these minorities. Some are suspecting turf war for control of the lucrative niche trade in Muslim majority Iraq. The shops have been firebombed in the middle of the night or just before dawn, with three simultaneous attacks in different districts Monday night alone. Andre, an Iraqi Christian, said his shop was firebombed a few weeks ago by two people on a motorcycle just before dawn, according to the store's security camera footage. He said it had cost him thousands of dollars to replace the lost merchandise and repair the shop. "These groups want the last of the Christians to leave the country. They're targeting us," Andre told AFP, as his brother stacked new bottles of whisky on restored shelves. He blamed security forces for negligence, saying a police patrol that had been deployed nearby left its post for hours, which gave the attackers a window of opportunity. "Why doesn't the government arrest them?" Andre asked angrily, saying he had even provided authorities with the license plate number of the attacking vehicle from their CCTV footage. The attackers had "time to place the explosives, take pictures before and after and publish them on Facebook," he said. Another business owner, speaking on condition of anonymity in fear of reprisal attacks, said it was an attempt to crush the shrinking community of Iraqi secularists. "We are all that's left of a liberal lifestyle. There are attempts to kill this ancient side of Baghdad -- if they win, Baghdad will have lost its liberal side," he said. In recent weeks, an array of Islamist groups have ramped up their rhetoric against Baghdad's liquor stores and other establishments that they insist are violating religious edicts against drinking and other trades considered sinful. One such group, "Rubu Allah" or "God's gang," claimed responsiblity for raiding a massage parlour in the heart of Baghdad and physically assaulting the women inside.

Non-Muslim shopowners being targetted in Iraq

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Manas Joshi

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.