DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increaseNew Foto - DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — In the final moments of a life defined by violence, 60-year-oldEdward Zakrzewskithanked the people of Florida for killing him "in the most cold, calculated, clean, humane, efficient way possible," breathing deeply as a lethal drug cocktail coursed through his veins. With his last breath, strapped to a gurney inside a state prison's death chamber, Zakrzewski paid what Florida had deemed was his debt to society and becamethe 27th personput to death in the U.S. so far this year, the highest number in a decade. Under Republican Gov.Ron DeSantis, Florida has executednine people in 2025, more thanthan any other state, and set a new state record, with DeSantis overseeing more executions in a single year than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Across the country,more people have been put to deathin the first seven months of this year thanin all of 2024. Florida's increase is helping put the U.S. on track to surpass 2015's total of 28 executions. And the number of executions is expected to keep climbing. Nine more people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. Florida drives a national increase in executions After the Supreme Court lifted its ban on capital punishment in the '70s, executions steadily increased, peaking in 1999 at 98 deaths. Since then, they had been dropping — in part due to legal battles, a shortage of lethal injection drugs, and declining public support for capital punishment, which has prompted a majority of states to either pause or abolish it altogether. The ratcheting up after this yearslong decline comes as Republican PresidentDonald Trumphas urged prosecutors toaggressively seek the death penaltyand as some GOP-controlled state legislatures have pushed to expand thecategory of crimespunishable by death andthe methods usedtocarry out executions. John Blume, director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project, says the uptick in executions doesn't appear to be linked to a change in public support for the death penalty or an increase in the rate of death sentences, but is rather a function of the discretion of state governors. "The most cynical view would be: It seems to matter to the president, so it matters to them," Blume said of the governors. 'The only appropriate punishment' In response to questions from The Associated Press, a spokesperson for DeSantis pointed to statements the governor made at a press conference in May, saying he takes capital cases "very seriously." "There are some crimes that are just so horrific, the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty," DeSantis said, adding: "these are the worst of the worst." Julie Andrew expressed relief after witnessing theApril executionof the man who killed her sister in the Florida Keys in 2000. "It's done," she said. "My heart felt lighter and I can breathe again." The governor's office did not respond to questions about why the governor is increasing the pace of executions now and whether Trump's policies are playing a role. Deciding who lives and who dies Little is publicly known about how the governor decides whose death warrant to sign and when, a process critics have called "secretive" and "arbitrary." According to the Florida Department of Corrections, there are 266 people currently on death row, including two men in their 80s, both of whom have been awaiting their court-ordered fate for more than 40 years. Speaking at the press conference in May, DeSantis said it's his "obligation" to oversee executions, which he hopes provide "some closure" to victims' families. "Any time we go forward, I'm convinced that not only was the verdict correct, but that this punishment is absolutely appropriate under the circumstances," DeSantis said. US ranks alongside Iran and Saudi Arabia for executions For years, the U.S. has ranked alongside Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt as among the countries carrying out the highest number of confirmed executions. China is thought to execute more of its citizens than any other nation, although the exact totals are considered a state secret, according to the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center. Robin Maher, the center's executive director, says elected officials in the U.S. have long used the death penalty as a "political tool," adding it's "a way of embellishing their own tough-on-crime credentials." Florida executions vary year to year In 2024, DeSantis signed one death warrant. From 2020-2022, Florida didn't carry out a single execution. In 2023, DeSantis oversaw six — the highest number during his time in office until this year. 2023 was also the yearthe governor challenged Trumpfor the Republican presidential nomination. There are a number of reasons why the rate of executions may vary from one administration to the next, said Mark Schlakman, an attorney and Florida State University professor who advised then-governor Lawton Chiles on the death penalty. The availability of staff resources, the tempo of lengthy legal appeals, and court challenges against the death penalty itself can all play a role, Schlakman said, as well as a governor's "sensibilities." 'The one person who can stop this' One execution after another, opponents of the death penalty hold vigils in the Florida capitol, outside the governor's mansion, and near the state prison that houses the death chamber, as people of faith across the state pray for mercy, healing and justice. Suzanne Printy, a volunteer with the group Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, has hand-delivered thousands of petitions to DeSantis' office, but says they seem to have no effect. Recently, DeSantis signed death warrants for two more men scheduled to die later this month. Still, Printy keeps praying. "He's the one person who can stop this," she said. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative.Report for Americais a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase

DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — In the final moments of a life d...
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echoNew Foto - After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo

NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when theSmithsonian Institutionsaid ithad removed a referenceto the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of PresidentDonald Trumpfrom a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms "divisive." A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of "legacy content recently" and the exhibit eventually "will include all impeachments." There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: "We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness." But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions likeremoving the nameof a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress todefund the Corporation for Public Broadcastingand getting rid of theleadership at the Kennedy Center. "Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools," said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history." It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. "If they don't control the historical narrative," he said, "then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics." It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, "The Death of a President." Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. "We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world," said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. "So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth." Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was "concerned and disappointed" about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors "should have red lines" and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had "come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology" — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. "You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?" Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: "The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels." ___

After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo

After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the mos...
Supreme Court raises the stakes in a Louisiana redistricting caseNew Foto - Supreme Court raises the stakes in a Louisiana redistricting case

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday expanded the scope of a Louisiana congressional redistricting dispute that has been pending for months by ordering new briefing on a legal question that could further weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. The courtissued an orderasking the lawyers to address whether, in seeking to comply with the 1965 law that protects minority voting rights, Louisiana violated the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments enacted after the Civil War to ensure Black people were treated equally under the law. If the court rules that the state did violate the Constitution, it would mean states cannot cite the need to comply with the Voting Rights Act if they use race as a consideration during the map-drawing process, as they currently can. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, wrote on hisElection Law Blogthat the order "appears to put the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act into question." That provision bars voting practices or rules that discriminate against minority groups. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority is often receptive to arguments that the Constitution is "colorblind," meaning no consideration of race can ever be lawful even if it is aimed at remedying past discrimination. In 2013, the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Alabama and further weakened it in a2021 case from Arizona. The justices heard arguments in the Louisiana case on more technical, less contentious questions in March and was originally expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Even then,the constitutional issue loomed large. The new order did not indicate whether the court will hear another round of arguments before it issues a ruling in the case. The Louisiana map in question, which is currently in effect, includes two majority-Black districts for the first time in years. The complicated case arose from litigation over an earlier map drawn by the state legislature after the 2020 census that included just one Black-majority district out of the state's six districts. About a third of the state's population is Black. Civil rights groups, including the Legal Defense Fund, won a legal challenge, arguing that the Voting Rights Act required two majority-Black districts. But after the new map was drawn, a group of self-identified "non-African American" voters led by Phillip Callais and 11 other plaintiffs filed another lawsuit, saying the latest map violated the 14th Amendment. As recently as 2023, the Supreme Courtreaffirmed the Voting Rights Actin a congressional redistricting case arising from Alabama. But conservatives raised questions about whether key elements of the law should ultimately be struck down.

Supreme Court raises the stakes in a Louisiana redistricting case

Supreme Court raises the stakes in a Louisiana redistricting case WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday expanded the scope of a Louisiana...
Pfizer CEO attending $25 million fundraiser at Trump's golf club, sources sayNew Foto - Pfizer CEO attending $25 million fundraiser at Trump's golf club, sources say

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is among those expected at a fundraiser President Trump is attending Friday at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, sources told CBS News. The fundraiser for the pro-Trump super political action committee MAGA Inc. aims to raise about $25 million, one of the sources said. One day prior to the event, Mr. Trump sent letters to pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, demanding they lower U.S. drug prices to more evenly match what other countries pay. The White House's letters to 17 drug companies, including AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi, asked for commitments within 60 days to sell drugs for Medicaid patients and all new drugs at "most favored nation" rates. The president posted images of the letters to Truth Social. Mr. Trump signed anexecutive orderin May telling federal officials to draw up "most favored nation" regulations unless pharmaceutical companies made progress toward cutting prices. This week's letters — which were addressed to Bourla and the other CEOs — accused the drugmakers of promising "more of the same" since then. The president said Friday he's "gone to war with the drug companies and, frankly, other countries" on the drug price issue. "I think we're going to be very successful fairly soon. We'll have drug prices coming down by 500, 600 800 even 1,200 percent," Mr. Trump said in an interview with Newsmax on Friday afternoon. The high cost of prescription drugs has vexed both parties for decades. Proposals to tie drug prices for U.S. patients to the typically much-lower rates charged in other developed countries have floated around for years, but the idea hasfaced some legal pushback. Meanwhile, drugmakers argue price caps could discourage innovation by making it harder to pay for research and development for new drugs. The industryalso arguesthat Americans tend to have access to more groundbreaking drugs than residents of foreign countries with stricter price regulations — and says high drug prices are just one part of a broader trend of higher healthcare spending in the U.S. Bourla has engaged with Mr. Trump in the past. Pfizer was one of the drugmakers that was picked to rapidly develop COVID-19 vaccines in the first Trump administration's "Operation Warp Speed." And two weeks before Mr. Trump's second inauguration, Bourla and other Pfizer executives traveled to Mar-A-Lago for meetings, theFinancial Timeshas previously reported. CBS News has reached out to Pfizer and the White House for comment. Arkansas officials reveal new details about Devil's Den murders of husband and wife The A.I. Divide | America Unfiltered Defense attorneys refuse new cases in Massachusetts, citing unfair pay

Pfizer CEO attending $25 million fundraiser at Trump's golf club, sources say

Pfizer CEO attending $25 million fundraiser at Trump's golf club, sources say Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is among those expected at a fund...
FAA planning more helicopter route changes after fatal collisionNew Foto - FAA planning more helicopter route changes after fatal collision

By David Shepardson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday it is planning additional helicopter route changes near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after the January 29 mid-air collision of an American Airlines regional jet and an Army helicopter that killed 67 people. FAA official Nick Fuller said at a National Transportation Safety Board investigative hearing that an agency work group is planning changes on a key helicopter route near Reagan after imposing permanent restrictions on non-essential helicopter operations in March and further restricting where they could operate in June. NTSB officials at the hearing expressed concerns about a "disconnect" between front-line air traffic controllers and agency leaders and raised other questions about FAA actions before the fatal collision, including why earlier reports of close call incidents did not prompt safety improvements. Board members have also raised concerns about the failure of the FAA to turn over documents in a timely fashion during the investigation of the January collision. The NTSB received details on staffing levels at the time of the January 29 crash "after considerable confusion and a series of corrections and updates from the FAA," a board report said. The hearing has run more than 30 hours over three days and raised a series of troubling questions, including about the failure of the primary controller on duty to issue an alert to the American regional jet and the actions of an assistant controller who was supposed to assist the primary controller. "That did not occur and we're trying to understand why. And no one has been able to tell us what the individual was doing during that time," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said. Homendy said earlier this week the FAA had ignored warnings about serious safety issues. "Every sign was there that there was a safety risk, and the tower was telling you," Homendy said. "You transferred people out instead of taking ownership over the fact that everybody in FAA in the tower was saying there was a problem ... Fix it. Do better." FAA officials at the hearing vowed to work more collaboratively and address concerns. Senator Tim Kaine on Friday also cited concerns raised by an FAA manager about the volume of flights at the airport before the collision and the decision by Congress last year to add five additional daily flights to Reagan. "Congress must act to reduce dangerous congestion by removing flights into and out of (Reagan National)," Kaine said. (Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Sandra Maler and Tom Hogue)

FAA planning more helicopter route changes after fatal collision

FAA planning more helicopter route changes after fatal collision By David Shepardson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Federal Aviation Administrat...

 

VS POLITICS © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com