Connect with us

Politics

Column: The Supreme Court's role in our partisan polarization has been greatly exaggerated

Published

on

Column: The Supreme Court's role in our partisan polarization has been greatly exaggerated

Conventional wisdom suggests that the Supreme Court, like the country, is deeply divided along partisan and ideological lines. But this overlooks the court’s historic recent run of unanimous decisions and the fact that the liberal and conservative justices often don’t vote as blocs.

Court critics tend to respond to these inconvenient realities by saying something like, Sure, but on the big cases, the culturally divisive ones, the conservatives form the majority and the liberals the dissenting minority.

This is obviously true sometimes. The Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe vs. Wade, is a paradigmatic example. While I think Dobbs was correctly decided on the merits, it also was an important, polarizing ruling along ideological lines.

I’m happy to concede that, but why can’t critics concede the reverse? When the court doesn’t rule along ideological lines on important cases, they simply stop calling the cases important. As legal analyst Sarah Isgur (my colleague at the Dispatch) and economist Dean Jens recently put it in Politico, “If one defines ‘important’ as the most politically divisive, then it becomes circular.” Which cases are divisive? The important ones. Which cases are important? The divisive ones.

Last year, the court accepted a case brought by antiabortion doctors seeking to reverse the Food and Drug Administration’s relaxation of restrictions on the abortion drug mifepristone. In the wake of Dobbs, many understandably thought the case was important and divisive.

Advertisement

Last week, however, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the pro-abortion-rights position. If you listened closely, you could almost hear throngs of pro-abortion-rights court critics whispering, “Never mind.”

Gun rights are another obvious example of partisan polarization. And last week, the Supreme Court issued a decision on the subject along the dreaded conservative-liberal axis. All six Republican-appointed justices voted to overturn a ban on bump stocks, which for practical purposes convert legal semiautomatic weapons into automatic weapons akin to machine guns, which have been illegal for 100 years.

The bump stock ban was imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under then-President Trump in the wake of the monstrous 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. So the supposedly partisan Republican justices overturned a Republican administration’s reinterpretation of the law, while the Democratic appointees voted to uphold it. It was in that sense another example of a decision that doesn’t tidily fit the conventional storyline.

Still, liberal critics of the court immediately denounced the conservative majority’s originalist zealotry, while right-wingers celebrated a “major win” for the 2nd Amendment, in the words of Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton. But the case had little to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Rather, the court rightly held that the Trump administration couldn’t unilaterally rewrite the established meaning of a statute banning machine guns to include bump stocks. If Trump is reelected, you can imagine many liberals suddenly looking more favorably on the idea that presidents can’t unilaterally rewrite the law.

Advertisement

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s concurrence with the majority opinion gets to the crux of the problem. Referring to the Las Vegas shooting, Alito wrote that “an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.

“There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law — and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”

What Alito is getting at is that Congress isn’t doing its job. The president is supposed to faithfully execute the law — hence the “executive branch” — and Congress, the legislative branch, is supposed to write the law. Both parties have colluded over decades to ignore this basic division of labor.

When the Trump administration banned bump stocks, it was responding to public pressure. But it was also protecting Republican legislators from being forced to take a hard vote in response to that public pressure.

Whether it’s forgiving student loans, banning bump stocks, controlling the border or setting trade policy, Congress doesn’t want the responsibility — or the accountability — that comes with being a legislature. So its members let the White House and the courts do their job for them, relishing the chance to gripe when they do it wrong or take credit when they do it right. This reliance on the other branches raises the stakes of presidential elections and judicial confirmations.

Advertisement

Yes, polarization is part of the reason for Congress’ dysfunction. But Congress’ dysfunction also drives polarization.

@JonahDispatch

Advertisement

Politics

Nearly 20 states sue HHS over declaration to restrict gender transition treatment for minors

Published

on

Nearly 20 states sue HHS over declaration to restrict gender transition treatment for minors

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A group of 19 Democrat-led states and Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over a declaration that aims to restrict gender transition treatment for minors.

The lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; its secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; and its inspector general comes after the declaration issued last week described treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and gender surgeries as unsafe and ineffective for children experiencing gender dysphoria.

The declaration also warned doctors they could be excluded from federal health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, if they provide these treatments to minors.

The move seeks to build on President Donald Trump’s executive order in January calling on HHS to protect children from “chemical and surgical mutilation.”

Advertisement

HHS UNLEASHES SWEEPING CRACKDOWN ON CHILD ‘SEX-REJECTING PROCEDURES,’ THREATENS HOSPITAL, MEDICAID FUNDING

The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; its secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; and its inspector general. (Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters)

“We are taking six decisive actions guided by gold standard science and the week one executive order from President Trump to protect children from chemical and surgical mutilation,” Kennedy said during a press conference last week.

HHS has also proposed new rules designed to further block gender transition treatment for minors, although the lawsuit does not address the rules, which have yet to be finalized.

The states’ lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Eugene, Oregon, argues that the declaration is inaccurate and unlawful and urges the court to prevent it from being enforced.

Advertisement

“Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online, and no one should lose access to medically necessary health care because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors’ offices,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the lawsuit, said in a statement.

The lawsuit claims the declaration attempts to pressure providers into ending gender transition treatment for young people and circumvent legal requirements for policy changes. The complaint said federal law requires the public be given notice and an opportunity to comment before substantively amending health policy and that neither of these were done before the declaration was released.

HHS’ move seeks to build on President Donald Trump’s executive order in January calling on HHS to protect children from “chemical and surgical mutilation.” (Tom Brenner for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The declaration based its conclusions on a peer-reviewed report that the department conducted earlier this year that called for more reliance on behavioral therapy rather than broad gender transition treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.

The report raised questions about standards for the treatment of transgender children issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and brought concerns that youths may be too young to give consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility.

Advertisement

Major medical groups and physicians who treat transgender children have criticized the report as inaccurate.

HHS also announced last week two proposed federal rules — one to cut off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that offer gender transition treatment to children and another to block federal Medicaid money from being used for these procedures.

HOUSE APPROVES MTG-SPONSORED BILL TO CRIMINALIZE GENDER TRANSITION TREATMENT FOR MINORS

New York Attorney General Letitia James led the lawsuit against the Trump administration. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

The proposals have not yet been made final and are not legally binding because they must go through a lengthy rulemaking process and public comment before they can be enforced.

Advertisement

Several major medical providers have already pulled back on gender transition treatment for youths since Trump returned to office, even those in Democrat-led states where the procedures are legal under state law.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Medicaid programs in just under half of states currently cover gender transition treatment. At least 27 states have adopted laws restricting or banning the treatment, and the Supreme Court’s decision this year upholding Tennessee’s ban likely means other state laws will remain in place.

Democrat attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington state and Washington, D.C., as well as Pennsylvania’s Democrat governor, joined James in the lawsuit.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Claims about Trump in Epstein files are ‘untrue,’ the Justice Department says

Published

on

Claims about Trump in Epstein files are ‘untrue,’ the Justice Department says

Tips provided to federal investigators about Donald Trump’s alleged involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s schemes with young women and girls are “sensationalist” and “untrue,” the Justice Department said on Tuesday, after a new tranche of files released from the probe featured multiple references to the president.

The documents include a limousine driver reportedly overhearing Trump discussing a man named Jeffrey “abusing” a girl, and an alleged victim accusing Trump and Epstein of rape. It is unclear whether the FBI followed up on the tips. The alleged rape victim died from a gunshot wound to the head after reporting the incident.

Nowhere in the newly released files do federal law enforcement agents or prosecutors indicate that Trump was suspected of wrongdoing, or that Trump — whose friendship with Epstein lasted through the mid-2000s — was investigated himself.

But one unidentified federal prosecutor noted in a 2020 email that Trump had flown on Epstein’s private jet “many more times than previously has been reported,” including over a time period when Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s top confidante who would ultimately be convicted on five federal counts of sex trafficking and abuse, was being investigated for criminal activity.

The Justice Department released an unusual statement unequivocally defending the president.

Advertisement

“Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election,” the Justice Department statement read. “To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”

“Nevertheless, out of our commitment to the law and transparency, the DOJ is releasing these documents with the legally required protections for Epstein’s victims,” the department added.

The Justice Department files were released with heavy redactions after bipartisan lawmakers in Congress passed a new law compelling it to do so, despite Trump lobbying Republicans aggressively over the summer and fall to oppose the bill. The president ultimately signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law after the legislation passed with veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

One newly released file containing a letter purportedly from Epstein — a notorious child sex offender who died in jail while awaiting federal trial on sex-trafficking charges — drew widespread attention online, but was held up by the Justice Department as an example of faulty or misleading information contained in the files.

The letter appeared to be sent by Epstein to Larry Nassar, another convicted sex offender, shortly before Epstein’s death. The letter’s author suggested that Nassar would learn after receiving the note that Epstein had “taken the ‘short route’ home,” possibly referring to his suicide. It was postmarked from Virginia on Aug. 13, 2019, despite Epstein’s death in a Manhattan jail three days prior.

Advertisement

“Our president shares our love of young, nubile girls,” the letter reads. “When a young beauty walked by he loved to ‘grab snatch,’ whereas we ended up snatching grub in the mess halls of the system. Life is unfair.”

The Justice Department said that the FBI had confirmed that the letter is “FAKE” after it made the rounds on Tuesday.

“This fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual,” the department posted on social media. “Nevertheless, the DOJ will continue to release all material required by law.”

The department has faced bipartisan scrutiny since failing to release all of the Epstein files in its possession by Dec. 19, the legal deadline for it to do so, and for redacting material on the vast majority of the documents.

Justice Department officials said they were following the law by protecting victims with the redactions. The Epstein Files Transparency Act also directs the department not to redact images or references to prominent or political figures, and to provide an explanation for each and every redaction in writing.

Advertisement

The latest release, just days before the Christmas holiday, includes roughly 30,000 documents, the department said. Hundreds of thousands more are expected to be released in the coming weeks.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a statement in response to the Tuesday release accusing the Justice Department of a “cover-up,” writing on social media, “the new DOJ documents raise serious questions about the relationship between Epstein and Donald Trump.”

Documents from Epstein’s private estate released by the oversight committee earlier this fall had already cast a spotlight on that relationship, revealing Epstein had written in emails to associates that Trump “knew about the girls.”

The latest documents release also includes an email from an individual identified as “A,” claiming to stay at Balmoral Castle, a royal residence in Scotland, asking Maxwell if she had found him “some new inappropriate friends.” Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, has come under intense scrutiny over his ties to Epstein in recent years.

Speaking at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Monday, Trump said the continuing Epstein scandal amounts to a “distraction” from Republican successes, and expressed disapproval over the release of images in the files that reveal associates of Epstein.

Advertisement

“I believe they gave over 100,000 pages of documents, and there’s tremendous backlash,” Trump told reporters. “It’s an interesting question, because a lot of people are very angry that pictures are being released of other people that really had nothing to do with Epstein. But they’re in a picture with him because he was at a party, and you ruin a reputation of somebody. So a lot of people are very angry that this continues.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Nick Fuentes says he’ll campaign against Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio in slur-laced rant

Published

on

Nick Fuentes says he’ll campaign against Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio in slur-laced rant

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

White nationalist Nick Fuentes vowed to campaign against Vivek Ramaswamy in a slur-laced rant denouncing the Republican’s Ohio governor bid. 

The declaration came just days after Ramaswamy called out Fuentes during a speech at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest conference in which he criticized Fuentes over some of his inflammatory remarks. 

“I think I’m going to go to Ohio and the word that we are looking for is denial. We have to deny Vivek Ramaswamy the governorship. This is the only race I care about in ‘26. It’s the only one I care about,” Fuentes said during a Tuesday livestream. He also used a slur to describe Ramaswamy and said he does not care if a Democrat defeats him in the governor’s race.

When asked by Fox News Digital for a response, a spokesperson for Ramaswamy’s campaign said on Wednesday, “We’re focused on the issues that matter most to Ohioans, not fringe voices that prefer a far-left Democrat to the Trump-endorsed conservative.”

Advertisement

VIVEK RAMASWAMY TURNS TO CONSERVATIVE YOUTH TO SHAPE THE MOVEMENT’S NEXT PHASE, ANALYZES 2026 RACES 

Vivek Ramaswamy speaks during Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest conference on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025. At right is White nationalist Nick Fuentes outside a Turning Point event on June 15, 2024, in Detroit. (Cheney Orr/Reuters; Dominic Gwinn/Getty Images)

Ramaswamy laid out his vision for what it means to be an American during remarks Friday at AmericaFest. 

“What does it mean to be an American in the year 2026? It means we believe in those ideals of 1776,” he said at the Turning Point USA event. “It means we believe in merit, that the best person gets the job regardless of their skin color.”

“It means we believe in free speech and open debate,” he added. “Even for those who disagree with us, from Nick Fuentes to Jimmy Kimmel, you get to speak your mind in the open without the government censoring you.”

Advertisement

RAMASWAMY REVEALS MAIN LESSON LEARNED BY REPUBLICANS AFTER DEMOCRATS’ BIG WINS ON ELECTION DAY

Vivek Ramaswamy speaks during Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest 2025, on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025, in Phoenix. (Jon Cherry/AP)

Ramaswamy then said, “If you believe in normalizing hatred toward any ethnic group, toward Whites, toward Blacks, toward Hispanics, toward Jews, toward Indians, you have no place in the future of the conservative movement, period.” 

“And I will not apologize for that. I will not hedge when I say it,” Ramaswamy continued. “If you believe, and you will forgive me for giving you an exact quote from our online commentator, Nick Fuentes. If you believe that Hitler was pretty f—— cool, you have no place in the future of the conservative movement. You can debate foreign aid, Israel all you want. That’s fine. That’s fair. But you have no place with that level of hatred.” 

Ramaswamy declared his candidacy for the Ohio governorship in late February.

Advertisement

Ramaswamy is running to replace Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, shown here in the Old Senate Chamber in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 21, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP  

Current Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, who is also a Republican, is term-limited and will be departing office in January 2027. 

Fox News Digital’s David Rutz contributed to this report. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending