NFL afirma que el número de conmociones en pretemporada es el menor que se haya registrado

Mayor Bass took the cautious route in selecting Jim McDonnell as the next LAPD chief

Trevon Nathaniel Langstaff, 33, who was arrested in March, pleaded guilty Friday to one count of traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, according to the U.S. attorney's office.

The Post’s Dan Martin breaks down how the Yankees and Royals match up.

Hit the hay in comfort and style.

The Phillies await in an NLDS matchup that begins Saturday at Citizens Bank Park, the next step for a Mets club that has slayed some demons in Atlanta and Milwaukee. 

The murder suspect's arrival "brought an overwhelming sense of grief and sadness to Patty Morin," who teared up as he took his place at the defense table, Rice said.

In 1996, Erik and Lyle Menendez were convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Los Angeles prosecutors said this week they are taking another look at the case.

Your backyards and porches will thank you.

Ultra-processed foods have these repercussions on children's health, nutritionist warns.

Don't let these deals simmer away.

Nature magazine has now gotten in on the disinfo racket, praising phone fact checkers and saying conservatives DESERVE to be censored.

John Edgar Wideman's hybrid of memoir/essay/fiction explores what enslaved people suffered and what their descendants still carry with them.

NY Post readers discuss John Kerry's recent comments about free speech and more.

The International Longshoremen's Association has delayed the dockworkers’ strike to January, but the ILA is still clearly committed to fighting the future, demanding an end to all new automation at East and Gulf Coast ports.

Readers have mixed reviews of the new DMV license renewal policy for senior drivers; some say changing physical abilities should require testing.

Antelope Valley locals have become activated by the potential placement of Christopher Hubbart, aka the “Pillowcase Rapist,” within the Juniper Hills Community. They see his placement and two others in 2021 as escalation in the relocation of violent sexual predators.

Gascón has been unfairly cast as the cause of recent crime waves. He did in his first term exactly what he promised voters: Work to make the justice system more just.

Newly reported deputy subgroup logo features a skull with blood-red eyes, pierced by a jagged lightning bolt

Chefs Daniel Patterson and Keith Corbin of Alta and Locol are taking over the Son of a Gun space with a tasting-menu restaurant next year — here's what to know.

Behind-the-wheel driving test for seniors: 'Don't you dare advocate for this!' or 'There are folks that should not be driving'

The dock workers union and maritime companies extended their previous contract through Jan. 15 to allow talks to continue on the remaining issues, especially automation.

New mothers are more likely to suffer depression if they are exposed to certain types of air pollution in the second trimester of pregnancy, researchers say.

Readers respond to conservative writer Scott Jennings' assessment that JD Vance delivered "smooth, well-constructed arguments."

The evidence prosecutors plan to consider includes a letter allegedly penned by Erik Menendez eight months before the murders and claims by another man that Jose Menendez sexually assaulted him in the 1980s.

Amid fierce Israeli bombardment in Lebanon, Hezbollah has failed to unleash its most potent deterrents.

The artist’s first solo show at the Museum of Modern Art grapples with the work he made after “The Americans.”

The New Jersey Devils will be thrilled with how they opened the 2024-25 NHL campaign. 

Shop our top picks, from apartment-friendly furniture to festive glassware to a surprisingly stylish shoe-storage solution.

Hooray for Way Day!

My more perceptive readers may have noticed that I’ve started referring to the justices of the Supreme Court as “Republicans” and “Democrats,” breaking with the traditional journalistic norm of labeling the justices “conservative” or “liberal.” In the interest of transparency, I want to explain why.  The short answer is that the words “Republican” and “Democrat” help convey what has happened to the Supreme Court in the last several decades. The Court has always been a political institution, but for most of its history there were not the hardline distinctions between justices chosen by a president of one political party, and justices chosen by the other party that we see today. As recently as 2010, for example, the Court included Justice John Paul Stevens, a Gerald Ford appointee who typically voted with the Court’s liberal wing. Gone as well are relatively moderate jurists like Justices Lewis Powell, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Anthony Kennedy. These were the sorts of justices who voted to limit abortion rights, but not to eliminate them. They placed strict restrictions on affirmative action, but didn’t kill it entirely.  Now, however, this kind of moderation is anathema, especially to Republican legal elites, many of whom still use the battle cry “No More Souters” to describe their approach to judicial appointments — a reference to Justice David Souter, a George H.W. Bush appointee who turned out to be a moderate liberal. The Republican Party’s highest officials certainly haven’t behaved as if they think that justices are nonpartisan. Why else would Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell make up a fake rule to stop President Barack Obama from confirming a Supreme Court justice in the final year of his presidency? McConnell claimed that justices may not be confirmed in a presidential election year. Then he abandoned this fake rule four years later to place Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett on the high court. Nor have Democrats failed to police their own nominees’ ideological conformity. None of the Supreme Court justices appointed by presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden broke with the Democratic Party’s approach to judging in the same way that Souter broke from the GOP’s. All of them generally supported abortion rights, affirmative action, marriage equality, and the Affordable Care Act. Every Democrat on the Supreme Court opposed Donald Trump’s claim that he could commit crimes while he was in office. All of the Court’s Democrats oppose the Republican justices’ decisions giving themselves a veto power over any regulatory decision made by the executive branch. The word “conservative,” which is typically used to signal caution or an allegiance to the status quo, is a particularly inappropriate term to describe this Court’s Republican majority. What, exactly, are the Republican justices “conserving” when they overrule multiple seminal precedents in a single term? What is “conservative” about abandoning the Court’s procedural norms to hand down revolutionary new legal rules on the Court’s shadow docket? What is “conservative” about rushing out half-baked legal standards that are incomprehensible to lower court judges? I am a journalist. That means it is my job to convey truth to my readers, and to describe the Court that I cover as accurately as I possibly can. And the unfortunate truth is that the Supreme Court of the United States is now a partisan institution. I would do my readers a disservice if I covered up this reality. Or if I used euphemistic language like “conservatives” and “liberals” to describe fundamentally partisan political appointees. And so I will not. And I encourage other journalists to do the same. The Supreme Court only recently became a partisan institution It’s astonishing how little thought many past presidents put into their Supreme Court appointments. In the past, justices were often chosen for idiosyncratic personal reasons, or to please a particular interest group or voting bloc, and without much, if any, inquiry into how the nominee was likely to decide cases. President Woodrow Wilson, for example, appointed Justice James Clark McReynolds — an awful judge and an even worse human being who Time magazine once described as a “savagely sarcastic, incredibly reactionary Puritan anti-Semite” — in large part because Wilson found McReynolds, who was US attorney general before he joined the Court, to be so obnoxious that the president promoted him to get him out of the Cabinet.  Similarly, President Dwight Eisenhower complained late in his presidency that appointing Justice William Brennan, one of the most consequential left-liberal jurists in American history, to the Supreme Court was among the biggest mistakes he made in office. But Ike’s White House never vetted Brennan for his ideological views, and Brennan was selected largely because Eisenhower was running for reelection when he made the nomination, and he thought that appointing a Catholic like Brennan would appeal to Catholic voters. Even in 1990, after top Republican officials had published lengthy documents laying out their party’s vision for the Constitution, they still hadn’t developed a reliable system for vetting Supreme Court nominees to ensure that they were on board with the party’s agenda. Bush chose the center-left Justice Souter over other, more right-wing candidates largely due to misguided advice from his top legal advisers. As journalist Jan Crawford Greenburg reported in a 2007 book, Souter beat out early frontrunner Ken Starr — the same Ken Starr who would go on to hound President Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky investigation — in large part because Bush’s right-wing advisers feared that Starr was too liberal. According to Crawford Greenburg, then-Deputy Attorney General Bill Barr opposed Starr because of a low-stakes dispute over “a federal law that permitted private citizens to sue for fraud against the federal government.” Much has changed since 1990. On the Republican side, the Federalist Society — a kind of bar association for right-wing lawyers with chapters on most law school campuses and in most major cities — now starts vetting law students for elite legal jobs almost as soon as they begin their studies. And Republican presidents can rely on the Federalist Society to identify ideologically reliable candidates for the bench. As Trump said in 2016 while campaigning for president, “We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society.” Nor is the Federalist Society the only way Republicans vet potential Supreme Court nominees. Every single one of the Court’s current Republican members except for Barrett previously served as a political appointee in a GOP administration, roles that allowed high-level Republicans to observe their work and probe their views. Democrats’ vetting process, meanwhile, is more informal. But it’s been no less successful in identifying Supreme Court nominees who reliably embrace their party’s stance on the most contentious issues. The last Democrat appointed to the Supreme Court who broke with the party’s pro-abortion rights stance, for example, was Justice Byron White — a dissenter in Roe v. Wade appointed by President John F. Kennedy in 1962. The result is a modern-day Supreme Court where every single member was carefully selected by their party to ensure that they will not stray on any of the issues where the two parties have settled views. Every Republican justice voted to abolish affirmative action on nearly all university campuses, with every Democratic justice in dissent. Every Republican voted to give the leader of the Republican Party broad immunity from criminal prosecution, with every Democrat in dissent. Every Republican except for Roberts voted to overrule Roe (and Roberts merely argued that the Court should have waited a little longer), while every Democrat dissented. The arguments against treating the justices as partisan actors are unpersuasive So, with all this evidence that the Supreme Court has become no less partisan than Congress or the presidency, what are the arguments against speaking of the justices in the same way we speak of presidents or members of Congress? Let’s start with the worst — albeit fairly common — argument for labeling the justices as nonpartisan actors: the claim that the justices are merely carrying out a particular “judicial philosophy” when they make decisions, and not making decisions based on what outcome their political party would prefer. As a descriptive matter, it’s probably true that most of the justices imagine themselves as devotees to a particular philosophy of judging, rather than as partisans carrying out a predetermined agenda. The six Republican justices who ruled that Trump was allowed to do crimes while he was in office, for example, would probably claim that they were applying a legal theory known as the “unitary executive” when they ruled in Trump’s favor — and not that they were reflexively protecting their own party leader. But this distinction is entirely academic, and it says nothing about how judges actually behave on the bench. As a practical matter, the difference between a hypothetical justice who consistently votes for the Republican Party’s preferred outcomes because they’ve adopted a “judicial philosophy” that reliably leads to those outcomes (we’ll call this hypothetical justice “Clarence Thomas”), and a hypothetical justice who votes for the same outcomes because they are a party loyalist (we’ll call this hypothetical justice “Samuel Alito”), is nonexistent. A slightly more sophisticated rebuttal is that the Court’s Republicans often vote with the Court’s Democrats. This is especially true in cases that do not raise politically contentious issues, but it also occasionally happens in cases involving divisive issues such as abortion. As Sarah Isgur and Dean Jens argue in an early June article making this claim, in the Court’s 2022-23 term, “about 50 percent of the court’s cases were decided unanimously.” It is true that the Court still hears a decent share of cases involving technical legal questions — such as when someone seeking certain veterans benefits should file a particular form, or when certain bankruptcy cases may be appealed — that do not divide the justices along partisan lines. But the same can be said about the other branches of government. In the month of July alone, for example, Congress enacted, and President Joe Biden signed, 13 new laws. None of these laws divided the two parties, and all of them were passed overwhelmingly — in some cases by a voice vote or by unanimous consent. Yet political reporters have no problem with labeling members of Congress “Democrats” or “Republicans” even though those members frequently agree about which bills should become law. Similarly, if you look at the schedule of, say, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, you will find that it is dominated by the sort of ordinary governance issues that come before governors of either party. DeSantis recently awarded an $8 million grant to help build roads in a Miami park, for example. And he touted the fact that emergency responders in Florida “pumped more than 194 million gallons of floodwaters” from Florida communities hit by Hurricane Debby. It’s likely that, if Florida’s governor was a Democrat, the state would have had a similar response to a hurricane. But the fact that DeSantis frequently oversees nonpartisan activity does not make him any less of a Republican. It’s also true that the Supreme Court, despite its Republican majority, sometimes reverses lower court decisions that would have moved the law aggressively rightward. In its most recent term, the justices reversed several fairly extreme decisions from the far-right United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, including one that could have triggered a second Great Depression. But, again, the fact that the Republican justices do not always take maximally right-wing views does not make them less Republican. Nor does it distinguish them from Republicans in other parts of the government. Many GOP members of Congress, for example, oppose providing military aid to Ukraine. But, when a Ukraine aid bill finally reached the House and Senate floors this spring, it was supported by 101 Republican House members and 31 Republican senators. Similarly, in 2023, DeSantis proposed unconstitutional legislation that would have limited press freedom in the state of Florida. Yet, while some Florida Republicans backed DeSantis, the bill died after conservative media organizations lobbied Republican lawmakers, warning them that the bill might hurt right-wing outlets. It is entirely normal, in other words, for Republican officials to disagree about specific issues, even if they share a partisan identity and a general approach to governance. The fact that the Republican justices also sometimes disagree with each other, or with more extreme Republicans elsewhere in the judiciary, does not make them any less Republican. The Republican justices, in other words, behave just like Republicans in other policymaking roles. They sometimes disagree with their fellow Republicans on important issues, but they also share a broad theory of governance, as well as a fairly granular agenda that includes (among other things) eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion, implementing a “colorblind” theory of the Constitution, and centralizing regulatory authority in the judicial branch of government. This shared agenda, moreover, did not happen by coincidence. It happened because Republicans developed a coherent view of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary, and then built sophisticated institutions to ensure that their judicial appointees share this view.  Journalists do not hesitate to label, say, former Attorney General Bill Barr a “Republican” just because he was appointed to high office and not elected, and we should not treat the political appointees on the Supreme Court any differently. We should call the Republican justices “Republicans,” and the Democratic justices “Democrats,” because that is the best way to educate our readers about how the modern-day Supreme Court actually functions.

Keeping track of events during a natural disaster was hard enough in the past, before people with dubious motives started flooding social media with sensational images generated by artificial intelligence. In a crisis, public officials, first responders, and people living in harm’s way all need reliable information. The aftermath of Hurricane Helene has shown that, even as technology has theoretically improved our capacity to connect with other people, our visibility into what’s happening on the ground may be deteriorating.Beginning late last week, Helene’s storm surge, winds, and rains created a 500-mile path of destruction across the Southeast. To many people’s surprise, the storm caused catastrophic flooding well inland—including in and around Asheville, North Carolina, a place that had frequently been labeled a “climate haven.” Pictures that many users assumed had been taken somewhere around Asheville began spreading rapidly on social media. Among them were photographs of pets standing on the rooftops of buildings surrounded by water; another image showed a man wading through a flood to rescue a dog. But news outlets that took a closer look noted that the man had six fingers and three nostrils—a sign that the image was a product of AI, which frequently gets certain details wrong.The spread of wild rumors has always been a problem during major disasters, which typically produce power outages and transportation obstacles that interfere with the communication channels that most people rely on from day to day. Most emergency-management agencies gather information from local media and public sources, including posts from local citizens, to determine where help is needed most. Noise in the system hinders their response.[Read: Hurricane Helene created a 30-foot chasm of earth on my street]In past crises, emergency managers at all levels of government have relied on local media for factual information about events on the ground. But the erosion of the local-news industry—the number of newspaper journalists has shrunk by two-thirds since 2005, and local television stations face serious financial pressure—has reduced the supply of reliable reporting.For a time, the social-media platform formerly known as Twitter provided countervailing benefits: Information moved instantaneously, and by issuing blue checks in advance to authenticated accounts, the platform gave users a way of separating reliable commentators from random internet rumormongers. But under its current owner, Elon Musk, the platform, renamed X, has changed its algorithms, account-verification system, and content-moderation approach in ways that make the platform less reliable in a crisis.Helene seemed to prove the point. X was awash in claims that stricken communities would be bulldozed, that displaced people would be deprived of their home, even that shadowy interests are controlling the weather and singling some areas out for harm. The Massachusetts Maritime Academy emergency-management professor Samantha Montano, the author of Disasterology: Dispatches From the Frontlines of the Climate Crisis, declared in a post on X that Helene was “Twitter’s last disaster.”It was also AI’s first major disaster. The fake images of devastation that proliferated on X, Facebook, and other platforms added to the uncertainty about what was happening. Some users spreading those images appear to have been trying to raise money or commandeer unsuspecting eyeballs for pet projects. Other users had political motives. To illustrate claims that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had abandoned Helene’s victims, right-wing influencers shared an AI-generated image of a weeping child holding a wet puppy. Another fake viral image showed Donald Trump wading through floodwaters.Disinformation—fast and unreliable—filled a vacuum exacerbated by power outages, bad cell service, and destroyed transportation routes; it then had to be swatted back by legacy media. Local print, television, and radio newsrooms have made a heroic effort in covering Helene and its aftermath. But they, too, are forced to devote some of their energies to debunking the rumors that nonlocals promote on national platforms.Unfortunately, the unfolding information crisis is likely to get worse. As climate change produces more frequent weather-related disasters, many of them in unexpected places, cynical propagandists will have more opportunities to make mischief. Good sources of information are vulnerable to the very climate disasters they are supposed to monitor. That’s true not just of local media outlets. In an ironic turn, Helene’s path of destruction included the Asheville headquarters of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, which tracks climate data, including extreme weather.[Read: Why Helene caught so many residents off guard]More disasters await us. We need to view reliable communications as a safety precaution in its own right—no different from sea walls or a tornado shelter.Over time, technological advances should allow for ever more precise monitoring of weather conditions. But our broader disaster-response system is buckling, because it relies on communication and collaboration among government officials, first responders, and citizens—and some of the assumptions under which it developed no longer hold. Officials cannot reach everyone through local media outlets; photos and videos purportedly taken in a disaster are not definitive proof; the number of people who deliberately spread misinformation is nontrivial, and doing so is getting easier. Government officials need to keep these constraints in mind in all their communications with the public. FEMA is adapting; it now has a webpage dedicated to dispelling rumors.But the burden also falls on average citizens. Emergency managers regularly urge people to stockpile 72 hours’ worth of food or water. But Americans should also be planning their disaster-media diet with similar care. That means following only known sources, learning how to identify doctored photos and videos, and understanding the danger of amplifying unverified claims. In moments of crisis, communities need to focus on helping people in need. The least we all can do is avoid adding to the noise.

One recurring theme — that Latinos do not have sufficient voting power in Los Angeles — seemingly has a powerful champion in California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

Started during the pandemic, this venture is the first step in a media empire being built by the actors Sean Hayes, Will Arnett and Jason Bateman.

Several people in Trump's orbit seemed to be aware that something was off.

His future just got clearer.

The 10-year-old boy, who reportedly has a history of auto theft and threats of violence, was arrested in Minneapolis.

Experts offered plenty of advice about ways to make the disaster-recovery process work. Here’s what to do and what to avoid.

Plenty of movies bomb, but Francis Ford Coppola’s latest is part of a different class of box office failures.

With tight contests in all seven battleground states, the candidates are pressing for a few thousand votes that could sway the outcome of the entire election.

Harris could be the first female president. But it’s Trump and Vance who are playing the gender card.

In a crisis-racked country where sectarian tensions simmer, many worry that the conflict between Israel and the Shiite militia Hezbollah will end in more destruction for all.

Donald J. Trump is returning to Butler, Pa., to hold another rally at the site where he was nearly assassinated in July in an attack that killed a man and wounded two others.

The Harris campaign is trying to transform women in battleground states into an organizing force who can drive their friends and family to the polls.

Nice weather is here just in time for the weekend. Cooler but still sun-filled into next week.

Within Our Lifetime, a group formed by New York students, has galvanized pro-Palestinian activists who are calling for the end of Israel — and facing accusations of antisemitism.

Dozens of discrimination complaints brought by conservative and pro-Jewish groups after the Oct. 7 attacks last year have spawned lengthy federal inquiries that some worry could chill free speech on campus.

Created by Jon Brown, produced by Armando Iannucci and directed by Sam Mendes, “The Franchise” centers on the cast and crew of a second-string superhero film.

Former President Trump on Friday slammed President Biden's response to if Israel should target Iran's nuclear sites following an attack by Iran on the country this week.