Nintendo Switch 2

 

Although the Nintendo Switch 2 has yet to be officially announced, Nintendo has confirmed that the announcement is coming within the fiscal year - which means before 31 March 2025. Based on the reveal and release of the original Nintendo Switch, it seems safe to assume that it will then release later that same year. This lines up with previous reports from the Japanese media outlet Nikkei that suggest that the console is set to release in 2025.

Nintendo Switch Pro: price speculation

The Nintendo Switch launched for $259.99 / £259.99 / AUD$435, with the newer Nintendo Switch OLED then available for $349.99 / £309.99 / AU$539.95. Given that the Nintendo Switch 2 will likely feature improved hardware compared to both models, the asking price is very likely to come in higher than these figures. 

For some additional perspective, the PS5 and Xbox Series X sell for $499.99 / £479.99 / AU$799.95 and $499 / £449 / AU$749 respectively. Nintendo often aims to undercut its competition, offering lower spec hardware at a more affordable price.

With this in mind, we wouldn't be surprised if the Nintendo Switch 2 is priced around $399.99 / £399.99 / AU$699.95 or even slightly lower to keep the competitive edge. That said, you should bear in mind that this figure is purely an educated guess for the time being.

Nintendo Switch 2: rumored spec

The most recent rumours regarding potential Nintendo Switch 2 specs come from a spec sheet created by the YouTube content creator Paul Eccleston or “RedGamingTech”. As explained by Tom’s Hardware, Eccleston supposedly made the spec sheet with information from his own sources and a report by the Korean United Daily News. This spec sheet suggests that the Nintendo Switch 2 will feature an eight core Cortex-A78AE processor, 8GB of RAM, and 64GB of internal eMMC storage. While this is not particularly impressive compared to the PS5 or Xbox Series X, it would still represent an improvement in power compared to all of the current Nintendo Switch models.

That same source also indicates that the Nintendo Switch 2 could offer hugely improved battery life, in addition to a 120 Hz refresh rate with a 7-inch OLED display. In terms of overall design, Ecclestone says that it is likely to be similar to that of the Nintendo Switch OLED. 

Interestingly, this contradicts older rumors that suggested we may see a mini-LED display used for the screen. According to a report by Taiwan’s Economic Daily News, a Nintendo Switch successor could sport mini-LED screens supplied by Innolux. 

Going back even further, Wccftech reported that a data miner known as "SciresM" had claimed to have found a reference to a new Nintendo Switch model within the Nintendo Switch’s latest firmware update under the codename 'Aula'. Rather than being within the Nintendo Switch itself, this source argues that the hardware improvement “might be inside a new dock and not inside the tablet". They do note, however, that "there’s no way to tell from the firmware code yet.”

We've also seen some Nintendo Switch Pro rumors thanks to a leaked Nvidia email which suggested the existence of the Tegra239 SoC (system on a chip). Reportedly, this was being designed specifically for an upcoming Nintendo Switch model, which could very well mean the Nintendo Switch 2.

Nintendo Switch Pro: latest news and rumors

A Nintendo Switch successor will be announced "within this fiscal year"

In a post to the official Nintendo X / Twitter corporate account on May 7 2024, the company confirmed that a "successor to the Nintendo Switch" will be announced "within this fiscal year". As the Japanese fiscal year ends on March 31 2025, we now know for sure that we will getting an official announcement before that date.

Nintendo Switch 2 reportedly delayed until 2025

As spotted by Tom's Guide, known leaker "Moore's Law is Dead" joined the many sources saying that the Nintendo Switch 2 had been delayed until at least 2025. Interestingly, they provided some additional insight that was supposedly gleaned  through their NVIDIA contacts. According to this leaker, the physical hardware powering the Nintendo Switch 2 has been ready for some time but Nintendo has been holding off on revealing the system in order to ensure adequate stock at launch - which lines up with other reports.

Nintendo president denies Nintendo Switch 2 developer briefings

Following our report that Nintendo Switch 2 tech demos took place at Gamescom 2023, which was confirmed by our own sources, Nintendo company president Shuntaro Furukawa denied that any such briefings took place. Speaking to the Japanese newspaper Mainichi, Furukawa described the briefings as "rumours" that "are inaccurate."

Nintendo has briefed Activision on a Nintendo Switch successor

In September 2023 an internal email that was unearthed as part of the now resolved FTC lawsuit over Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Acquisition revealed that Activision executives had been briefed about the existence of the "NG Switch" - a potential Switch successor. The email suggests that the Nintendo Switch 2 could offer performance that is roughly on par with a PlayStation 4 or Xbox One, which would definitely make sense if it maintained the handheld form factor of its predecessor. 

A Nintendo executive hinted at backwards compatibility

Going back even further, a Nintendo executive hinted at the possibility that the Nintendo Switch 2 could be backwards compatible in June 2023. Speaking in a shareholder Q&A session that was translated from Japanese, the executive stated that "[Nintendo] will do our best to make the transition smooth for our customers" when new hardware arrives.

Could the Nintendo Switch 2 have VR support?

While Nintendo has experimented with virtual reality (VR) functionality through Nintendo Labo, delivering a true VR in the vein of Sony's PSVR 2 would demand some pretty beefy hardware. While not totally impossible, it seems unlikely that Nintendo would be able to put out a handheld gaming system with console-quality graphics that also supports VR gaming. 

Could the Nintendo Switch 2 support 4K?

While Sony and Microsoft continue to expand into the 4K market, there isn’t really any big reason for Nintendo to follow suit. In an interview, Nintendo France General Manager Philippe Lavoué brushed off 4K saying that the technology has “not been adopted by the majority” and it would, therefore, be too early for Nintendo to jump on board.

Clarence Thomas Raises Another Reason Jack Smith’s Case Against Trump May Be Unconstitutional

 

In a concurring opinion in Trump v. United States, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas highlighted “another way in which this prosecution” — led by Special Counsel Jack Smith — “may violate our constitutional structure.” Specifically, Thomas writes that “the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States” but he’s “not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”

“Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former President for his official acts,” Thomas explains in his concurring opinion. “Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit us to chart such a dangerous course.” 

Thomas explains that the Constitution requires Congress to create any federal offices “by law” as an “important check against the President” who “cannot create offices at his pleasure.” As such, if “there is now law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution” because a “private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former president.” 

Noting that “[n]o former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country…despite numerous past president taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes,” Thomas warns that if Special Counsel Smith’s “unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.” 

Outlining the process by which presidents can appoint individuals as officers of the United States via nominations for someone who must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, with limited exceptions for inferior officers authorized by some heads of federal departments. “As relevant here, a ‘Hea[d] of Department’ — such as the Attorney General — is one such actor that Congress may authorize ‘by law’ to appoint inferior officers without senatorial confirmation,” Thomas explains. 

However, “[b]efore the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer…the Constitution requires that the underlying office be ‘established by Law,'” continues Thomas. “Although the Constitution contemplates that there will be ‘other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,’ it clearly requires that those offices ‘shall be established by Law,'” meaning “an office that Congress creates ‘by statute.'”

This check on presidential power, like many others enshrined in the Constitution, comes from abuses of power of the King of England. A brief history lesson from Thomas explains that our “Founders broke from the monarchial model by giving the President the power to fill offices (with the Senate’s approval), but not the power to create offices…by ‘imposing the constitutional requirement that new officer positions be ‘established by Law’ rather than through a King-like custom of the head magistrate unilaterally creating new offices.'”

In the past, the federal government has adhered to this constitutional principle, such as when “Congress created an office for a ‘special counsel’ to investigate the Teapot Dome Scandal and pursue prosecutions,” Thomas reminds. “We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office,” he further cautions. 

“To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be ‘established by Law,'” says Thomas. “As James Madison cautioned, ‘[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.'”

Put succinctly by Thomas: “If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord.”

When Attorney General Merrick Garland named Jack Smith as Special Counsel, “he did not identify any statute that clearly creates such an office…[n]or did he rely on a statute granting him the authority to appoint officers as he deems fit, as the heads of some other agencies have,” writes Thomas. “Instead, the Attorney General relied upon several statutes of a general nature,” none of which “appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose.”

More from Thomas on his questions about the special counsel’s legality:

Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause. For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be… Even if he is an inferior officer, the Attorney General could appoint him without Presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation only if “Congress…by law vest[ed] the Appointment” in the Attorney General as a “Hea[d] of Department.” … So, the Special Counsel’s appointment is invalid unless a statute created the Special Counsel’s office and gave the Attorney General the power to fill it “by Law.”

The concern about whether the Special Counsel’s office was lawfully established “is not a trifling technicality,” Thomas writes. “If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office. Given that the Special Counsel purports to wield the Executive Branch’s power to prosecute, the consequences are weighty,” he notes. 

“Our Constitution’s separation of powers, including its separation of the powers to create and fill offices, is ‘the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government’ and the liberty that it secures for us all,” Thomas emphasizes. “There is no prosecution that can justify imperiling it.”

Quoting from a Scalia dissent in Morrison v. Olson, Thomas says that while “the separation of powers may prevent us from righting every wrong, it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty.”

Rachel Levine Asked Experts to Remove Age Limits on Trans ‘Care.’ Here’s How the White House Responded.

 

Late last week, the Biden administration came out with a statement claiming that it does not support so-called gender-affirming” surgery for minors.The statement came in response to an article from The New York Times in response to an article reporting that Biden administration staff pressured a
transgender health organization to remove age restrictions for sex
reassignment surgery from its treatment guidelines for minors.

The pressure to remove age minimums for surgery was spearheaded by U.S. Adm. Rachel Levine, who is transgender, and his staff. Emails showing this were shared by
the Times. Here’s what the Biden administration said in response (via NYT):

“Adm. Levine shared her view with her staff that publishing the proposed
lower ages for gender transition surgeries was not supported by science
or research, and could lead to an onslaught of attacks on the
transgender community,” an H.H.S. spokesman said in a statement on
Friday evening.Federal officials did not elaborate further on the administration’s position regarding the scientific research or on Adm. Levine’s role in having the age minimums removed.The administration, which has been supportive of gender-affirming care for
transgender youth, expressed opposition only to surgeries for minors,
not other treatments. 

Levine’s pressured the World Professional Association for
Transgender Health to remove age limits for so-called “gender-affirming”
surgeries for transgender minors. The New York Times reported that the Biden administration believed that age
minimums on this kind of treatment could “fuel growing political
opposition to such treatmenOne email excerpt from an unnamed member of the WPATH
guideline development group recalled that they had a conversation with
Levine’s chief of staff, Sarah Boateng. They wrote, “She is confident,
based on the rhetoric she is hearing in D.C., and from what we have
already seen, that these specific listings of ages, under 18, will
result in devastating legislation for trans care. She wonders if the
specific ages can be taken out.”Another email claimed that Levine “was very concerned that having ages (mainly for surgery) will affect access to care for trans youth and maybe adults, too.
Apparently the situation in the U.S.A. is terrible and she and the Biden
administration worried that having ages in the document will make
matters worse. She asked us to remove them.”A fact sheet from the White House on “Transgender Day of Visibility” in
2022 showed that the Biden administration was committed to “advancing
equality” for transgender Americans, including children. One way this
was done was by “providing resources for transgender kids and their
families” through tax dollars. According to the fact sheet, tax dollars are used to provide mental health
resources to help “trans” children, expand training at schools to
“support transgender and nonbinary students,” and to confirm “positive
impact of gender affirming care on youth mental health,” which includes
sex change surgeries (via The White House)

The National Child Traumatic Stress Network NCTSN), which is administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, is releasing new information for providers confirming that providing gender-affirming care is neither child maltreatment nor malpractice.[…]The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health has developed a resource
to inform parents and guardians, educators, and other persons
supporting children and adolescents with information on what is
gender-affirming care and why it is important to transgender, nonbinary,
and other gender expansive young people’s well-being.