Aggregator
Sarah Pidgeon channels Carolyn Bessette Kennedy for date night with Joe Alwyn
Sarah Pidgeon channels Carolyn Bessette Kennedy for date night with Joe Alwyn
Moment vicious brawl breaks out in stands of Iran World Cup match
We’re newly married and sleep in separate bedrooms — and it doesn’t sacrifice our intimacy
Supreme Court Rejects Bid By 98-Year-Old Appeals Judge To Be Reinstated
Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 15 declined to take up the case of a 98-year-old federal judge’s challenge to her ongoing suspension from an appeals court in the nation’s capital.
The court’s new decision in Newman v. Moore took the form of an unsigned order. No justices dissented. The court did not explain its decision.
Judge Pauline Newman, who turns 99 on June 20, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She filed a petition in March with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Federal Circuit unconstitutionally forced her out of her position after an investigation found her alleged cognitive deterioration rendered her unfit for the job.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is not to be mistaken for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is a specialized court that has exclusive jurisdiction, or authority, to hear cases involving patents, trademarks, international trade, government contracts, and federal personnel and employment issues.
Newman, who was appointed in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, is an authority on patent law and a high-profile author of dissenting court opinions.
The lead respondent in the case is Chief Federal Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore.
Moore signed an order in 2023 saying that a three-judge committee consisting of herself and two others found there was “a reasonable basis to conclude [Newman] might suffer a disability that interferes with her ability to perform the responsibilities of her office.”
Newman failed to undergo medical testing after an expert recommended it, the order said. Newman also declined to accept service of orders, saying she “was not interested in receiving any documents regarding this matter,” and directed the mailroom at her residence not to accept the orders.
Later the same year, a council of judges barred Newman from hearing new cases for one year or until she underwent court-ordered medical examinations.
“We are acutely aware that this is not a fitting capstone to Judge Newman’s exemplary and storied career,” the council said at the time, adding it had no choice because she was “no longer capable of performing the duties of her judicial office.”
In the petition, Newman’s attorneys said the judge remains intellectually and physically robust.
They cite Dr. Aaron G. Filler of the Institute for Nerve Medicine in San Diego, who produced a report in 2024 saying that the then-97-year-old Newman “appears generally healthy and active as if 20 or more years younger than her stated age.”
Newman “engages normally and fluidly in interaction and conversation without any apparent diminishment that might be associated with age in the 10th decade as to other individuals,” Filler said.
The physician said Newman was a “Super-Ager,” which means she “does not demonstrate effects of age on cognition or demeanor comparable to many others at this age.”
“Based on my experience as an attorney and my expertise as a physician, the content of her speech is entirely appropriate for a serving Court of Appeals Judge,” Filler said.
Newman sued the council in federal district court in Washington. That court dismissed the lawsuit in 2024, finding that the courts have “consistently affirmed the judiciary’s authority to police itself.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the ruling in 2025.
Newman’s attorneys said in the petition that Moore has “improperly” used the federal Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 “to perpetually sideline Judge Newman until she gives in to the bullying and retires or takes senior status.”
Senior status is a form of semi-retirement for judges aged 65 or older who have served a minimum number of years of judicial service. Such judges work reduced caseloads but retain their full salary. Taking senior status creates a vacancy on a court, which the sitting president may then fill.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a brief in May on behalf of Moore, urging the Supreme Court not to accept the case.
Sauer said the lower courts correctly ruled that the law bars most district court reviews of judicial council decisions in misconduct or disability cases.
Andrew Morris, a lawyer at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represents Newman, said he was disappointed that the justices “did not take this opportunity to protect judicial independence.”
“We will continue to pursue available avenues to vindicate Judge Newman against her stealth impeachment,” he said.
A spokesperson for the Federal Circuit declined to comment.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 12:20Chiefs coach Andy Reid’s tuxedo for Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s wedding is fitted and ready
Chiefs coach Andy Reid’s tuxedo for Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s wedding is fitted and ready
When Will The ‘Forbidden Fruits’ Movie Be Streaming? Here’s Where To Watch Lili Reinhart’s Certified Fresh Horror Comedy
Rashee Rice sprints from reporters, dives into SUV after jail release in wild video
When Does ‘Your Fault: London’ Come Out on Amazon Prime Video? Release Date, Release Time, and Streaming Info
FanDuel Predicts promo code: Make any trade and get a $25 Bonus for Tuesday’s World Cup matches
Iraq vs. Norway World Cup prediction: Odds, picks, best bet
Trouble dating? Your messy car could be dirtying your love life: survey
Dodgers Post podcast: Yoshinobu Yamamoto’s no-hitter is coming, just not yet
Dog dating app sniffs out new furry friends — and prods owners to break out of their bubbles: ‘It was fun for me, too’
‘Sad nipple syndrome’ is leaving women distressed — docs explain what’s going on
Red Cross says deadly Congo Ebola epidemic yet to peak, may last a year
Sign(s) Here, Here, And Here
By Michael Every, global strategist at Rabobank
After pricing in nearly 40 pronouncements of US victory since early April, markets have naturally embraced a US-Iran ‘deal’ now e-signed --with a thumbs up emoji?-- so all that’s left is a ceremony to mark the event on Friday. That and the details of what was signed, which are still lacking from the US. In their absence, we get more polymetis spin from both sides.
- Iran is saying they got everything they wanted, and there are signs of that. Weeks ago, it was floated Iran would receive a $300bn reconstruction fund, a fanciful idea for a country that lost the war. However, it’s true - though the GCC will pay for it. Some see that behind IRGC rhetoric this could be a perestroika moment, e.g., if US firms win big contracts. Or it could just be the US making the GCC give Iran $300bn.
- There is shock and fury in Israel at the deal, which they don’t have the details of either, and the prospect of having their hands tied against Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. PM Netanyahu is taking a political hit ahead of elections he was already behind in the polls in.
- We also aren’t hearing anything about regime change anymore; or ballistic missiles; or Iran’s proxies; and Trump has watered down his ‘nuclear dust’ demands so that Iran can down-blend its 60% highly enriched uranium to a civilian level under supervision.
What we are hearing about is the reopening of Hormuz, which Trump claims has already happened: however, ‘mine your language’ on what that means. A US official says it might take 1-2 weeks to get energy flowing through the strait again. Other maritime experts suggest it could take 40-50 days. Japan, the UK, and some European states may send mine-sweepers to help speed that process, but they would take weeks to arrive. Recall it then takes weeks for energy cargoes to arrive at their final destinations if/when an exodus of trapped ships begins. That said, this morning three Iranian oil tankers and two ships carrying essential goods reportedly passed the US naval blockade.
Iran also states ships can transit Hormuz freely for the 60-day negotiation period with the US, but after that it will charge de facto tolls. That’s something the US opposes and is a significant flashpoint - alongside many others. If you are a crude carrier, once you finally escape Hormuz, do you return knowing a geopolitical deadline is ticking down, or opt for new routes?
In short, this isn’t a deal: it’s a “page and a half general” MoU (says VP Vance) to try to get a deal via performance-related incentives – but with equal ones to blow it up at different times.
From Israel’s perspective, the sooner this deal collapses the better. The PM has just restated that preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon remains his life’s mission, and that struggle isn’t over yet.
🔴Israel requested to see the US-Iran MoU document and was rejected - report
— i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) June 16, 2026His defence minister says Israel won’t leave the security zone it has seized in south Lebanon, and Hezbollah is firing at it there today; and a former PM and leading opposition candidate says the clock for Iran regime change to start as soon as the government in Israel changes.
The Iran deal has hammered Netanyahu's re-election chances on Polymarket, now 2% below Eizenkot for next Israeli PM, after being in the lead all year pic.twitter.com/VyVYuJuONG
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 16, 2026From Iran’s perspective, there is a case to see the deal collapse within months. Indeed, if Tehran cannot get the benefits promised by the US because it won’t take the steps required of it, then it arguably has little incentive to keep Hormuz open. Why allow energy to flow freely, taking pressure off the US and the world, while the GCC and others build alternative supply chains that reduce the strait’s strategic threat? Use it or lose it makes more sense, geopolitically.
From Trump’s perspective, the deal needs to hold until the midterm elections. However, on the other side of that, anything goes. On Monday the president reiterated that if Iran won’t buckle on his (revised) nuclear terms, he will restart bombing and would make the US “the guardian of the Middle East” in return for 20% of the region’s oil revenues.
In short, The Hormuz Odyssey continues, but we are monitoring the situation closely and will reassess once more details are available.
Meanwhile, there are other important developments that might once have been headline news.
The EU officially launched a Ukraine and Moldova accession process, as Moscow once again escalates its attacks on Kyiv. Obviously, this process could run for years, but like Hormuz, it is a development of vast geostrategic significance. That’s as the EU’s Kallas claimed China trained Russian troops and the Union is weighing sanctions and tariffs. Four days ago, The Economist argued, ‘A trade war between the EU and China seems inevitable’: some said the same four years ago. While the EU perhaps following the US stance towards China might not be as market-moving as the original (and sustained) US effort, it is hugely significant for the physical economy.
In related data today, Chinese retail sales dropped 0.6% y-o-y in May vs. -0.2% expected and rose just 1.4% y-o-y year-to-date (YTD), nearly negative in real terms, and underlining the parlous state of local consumption. Investment spending was -4.1% y-o-y YTD vs. -2.3% consensus, and property investment was -16.2% y-o-y YTD. By contrast, industrial production was 4.5% y-o-y and 5.4% y-o-y YTD, which logically has to flow abroad to find demand, raising trade tensions.
That backdrop raises the question of how much the EU and US want to fight each other at the same time. There, the US will use the G7 meeting today and tomorrow to push its ‘no-China’ critical minerals plan to decouple western supply chains upstream… which will logically argue for further decoupling downstream over time. It remains to be seen if others will line up behind it, however.
Lastly, two days ahead of a crucial UK byelection in Makerfield, where a victory for the would-be Labour Prime Minister Burnham would only be possible via a split on the right between the anti-EU Reform UK and the even more deeply anti-EU Restore UK, a Financial Times op-ed argues ‘Britain’s return to the EU is only a matter of time.’ That odyssey also continues on and on…
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 11:40