Politics
David H. Souter, a retired Supreme Court Justice, has died
WASHINGTON — Retired Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, the shy and frugal small-town New Englander who was touted as a conservative but surprised his Republican backers and nearly everyone else by becoming a staunch liberal on the high court, has died, the court said in a statement Friday. He was 85.
Souter stepped down in 2009 after nearly two decades on the court where he cast key votes to uphold laws on campaign finance, environmental protection, civil rights and church-state separation. He also played a crucial role in upholding a woman’s right to choose abortion in 1992.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts said in a statement that “Justice Souter served our court with great distinction for nearly 20 years. He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service.”
Souter often said he liked the court work, but he did not like living in Washington and looked forward to returning home.
“After retiring to his beloved New Hampshire in 2009, he continued to render significant service to our branch by sitting regularly on the court of appeals for the First Circuit,” Roberts said.
As an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, Souter was expected to join with then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and other conservatives who were determined to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that expanded abortion rights.
But when a Pennsylvania test case came before the court in 1992, Souter instead joined moderate Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy to affirm the right to abortion. Souter saw the issue as a matter of precedent.
Repealing the constitutional right to abortion would be “a surrender to political pressure,” he wrote. “To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.”
That decision stood for 30 years, but in 2022, three new justices appointed by President Trump played key roles in overturning the constitutional right to abortion and leaving it to the states to decide.
Souter had also cast key votes to maintain church-state separation. In 1992, he joined a 5-4 decision that upheld the strict ban on school-sponsored prayers at graduations. The five justices who voted to uphold the abortion right and the ban on school prayers were all Republican appointees.
But they no longer reflected the views of a more socially conservative GOP, and Souter was denounced by some in the party as a turn-coat. By the late 1990s, “No more Souters” had become a rallying cry for conservative legal activists.
“Justice Souter was a judicial version of a disappearing phenomenon: the moderate New England Republican,” said Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School. “He was not a true liberal and would not have been a liberal on the court of the 1960s and ‘70s. But he believed in privacy and civil rights and precedents, and that made him a liberal on the court of his day.”
He was unusual in other ways. Shortly after he arrived as a new justice in 1990, he was dubbed one of the city’s “most eligible bachelors” in the Washington Post, leading to a series of dinner invitations. He usually found himself seated between a single woman and a guest who spoke only Japanese, he later joked.
Souter became adept at turning down invitations. He would dine with Justice John Paul Stevens and his wife, or with O’Connor, but mostly he worked and ate alone. He spent evenings jogging along the waterfront near his small apartment.
Whenever the court took an extended break, Souter drove to the farmhouse where he grew up in tiny Weare, N.H., so he could hike.
He was in good health and not yet 70 when President Obama moved into the White House in early 2009. Soon after, Souter passed word that he intended to retire. Obama chose Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina on the high court, to replace him.
Souter was dubbed a “stealth nominee” when he arrived in Washington in 1990, and he remained a mystery when he left. He did no interviews and made no public statements.
Back in New Hampshire, he continued to serve part time as a retired judge on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, deciding low-profile cases out of the public spotlight.
Souter was not the first justice to surprise the president who appointed him, but he may be among the last. Since Souter’s time — and indeed, partly in reaction to him — presidents have carefully selected court nominees with public records showing they shared similar views on legal issues.
Souter had deep ties to the Republican Party. He carried a gold watch that was a prized possession of a great-great-grandfather who attended the Republican party convention of 1860 that nominated Abraham Lincoln as president.
The GOP supported environmental conservation and the separation of church and state when Souter was growing up. But it grew increasingly more conservative over the decades, and Souter didn’t always agree.
In July 1990, he was a 50-year-old bachelor who lived alone in a farm house with peeling paint and books on the floor. He had just been named to the U.S. court of appeals in Boston. Until then, he had spent his entire career as a prosecutor, state attorney and judge in New Hampshire.
His scholarly manner and devotion to the law had won him influential admirers, including then-Sen. Warren Rudman and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, who was then-White House chief of staff to the first President Bush.
When the Supreme Court’s liberal leader, William J. Brennan, suffered a stroke and announced his retirement, Souter’s name made the president’s short list of possible nominees.
Bush was anxious to avoid a fight with Senate Democrats over abortion and civil rights. Republicans still smarted from the Senate’s defeat in 1987 of Judge Robert Bork, whose strongly conservative writings convinced critics he was too extreme to be confirmed.
Souter seemed an ideal nominee. He was conservative, or at least old-fashioned. He wrote with a fountain pen, not a computer. And he ignored television. He only learned Brennan was stepping down when a postal clerk in his town shared the news.
Two days later, Souter stood in the White House press room as Bush announced his nomination. Souter was said to have no “paper trail,” but Sununu privately assured activists that he would be a “home run for conservatives.”
Liberal Democrats, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, were Souter’s sharpest critics that summer, while the arch-conservative Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina led the fight to confirm him. In less than two years, it became clear that both sides had miscalculated.
By the mid-1990s, Souter had allied himself with Stevens, another moderate Republican who also seemed to move left, and with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, the two appointees of President Clinton. They formed a liberal bloc in cases where the court split along ideological lines.
David Hackett Souter was born in Melrose, Mass., on Sept. 17, 1939, the only child of Joseph and Helen Souter. His father was a banker and his mother a gift shop clerk. When he was 11, the family moved to the New Hampshire farm house in Weare that remained Souter’s primary home until after his retirement.
As a Harvard undergraduate, Souter dated a young woman and spoke of marrying her. But when he won a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship and went to England to study at Oxford University, she found someone else.
Souter told friends he was disappointed he never married. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1966, he eschewed the big-city law firms and returned to the small-town life and rugged mountains of the New Hampshire he loved.
Friends and former clerks say Souter was never a true conservative as his early backers said, nor was he a solid liberal as he was portrayed years later.
Souter was “a judge’s judge,” said Penn Law Professor Kermit Roosevelt, who clerked for him in 1999. “He didn’t have a political agenda. People had a mistaken idea of what they were getting when he was appointed.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
FBI Director Kash Patel said Saturday that the agency is ramping up its use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to counter domestic and international threats.
In a post on X, Patel said the FBI has been advancing its technology, calling AI a “key component” of its strategy to respond to threats and stay “ahead of the game.”
“FBI has been working on key technology advances to keep us ahead of the game and respond to an always changing threat environment both domestically and on the world stage,” Patel wrote. “Artificial intelligence is a key component of this.”
‘PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED’: INSIDE THE FBI’S HALLOWEEN TAKEDOWN THAT EXPOSED A GLOBAL TERROR NETWORK
Kash Patel, director of the FBI, speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. ( Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Patel said the bureau is developing an AI initiative aimed at supporting investigators and analysts working in the national security space.
“We’ve been working on an AI project to assist our investigators and analysts in the national security space — staying ahead of bad actors and adversaries who seek to do us harm,” he said.
Patel added that FBI leadership has established a “technology working group” led by outgoing Deputy Director Dan Bongino to ensure the agency’s tools “evolve with the mission.”
EXCLUSIVE: FBI CONCLUDES TRUMP SHOOTER THOMAS CROOKS ACTED ALONE AFTER UNPRECEDENTED GLOBAL INVESTIGATION
The bureau is ramping up its use of AI tools to counter domestic and international threats. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP )
“These are investments that will pay dividends for America’s national security for decades to come,” Patel said.
A spokesperson for the FBI told Fox News Digital it had nothing further to add beyond Patel’s X post.
The FBI currently uses AI for tools such as vehicle recognition, voice-language identification, speech-to-text analysis and video analytics, according to the agency’s website.
DAN BONGINO TO RESIGN FROM FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROLE IN JANUARY
Patel credited outgoing Deputy Director Dan Bongino for his leadership with the AI initiative. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Earlier this week, Bongino announced he would leave the bureau in January after speculation rose concerning his departure.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“I will be leaving my position with the FBI in January,” Bongino wrote in an X post Wednesday. “I want to thank President [Donald] Trump, AG [Pam] Bondi, and Director Patel for the opportunity to serve with purpose. Most importantly, I want to thank you, my fellow Americans, for the privilege to serve you. God bless America, and all those who defend Her.”
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers unhappy with Justice Department decisions to heavily redact or withhold documents from a legally mandated release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein threatened Saturday to launch impeachment proceedings against those responsible, including Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general.
Democrats and Republicans alike criticized the omissions, while Democrats also accused the Justice Department of intentionally scrubbing the release of at least one image of President Trump, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggesting it could portend “one of the biggest coverups in American history.”
Trump administration officials have said the release fully complied with the law, and that its redactions were crafted only to protect victims of Epstein, a disgraced financier and convicted sex offender accused of abusing hundreds of women and girls before his death in 2019.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), an author of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the release of the investigative trove, blasted Bondi in a social media video, accusing her of denying the existence of many of the records for months, only to push out “an incomplete release with too many redactions” in response to — and in violation of — the new law.
Khanna said he and the bill’s co-sponsor, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), were “exploring all options” for responding and forcing more disclosures, including by pursuing “the impeachment of people at Justice,” asking courts to hold officials blocking the release in contempt, and “referring for prosecution those who are obstructing justice.”
“We will work with the survivors to demand the full release of these files,” Khanna said.
He later added in a CNN interview that he and Massie were drafting articles of impeachment against Bondi, though they had not decided whether to bring them forward.
Massie, in his own social media post, said Khanna was correct in rejecting the Friday release as insufficient, saying that it “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law.”
The lawmakers’ view that the Justice Department’s document dump failed to comply with the law echoed similar complaints across the political spectrum Saturday, as the full scope of redactions and other withholdings came into focus.
The frustration had already sharply escalated late Friday, after Fox News Digital reported that the names and identifiers of not just victims but of “politically exposed individuals and government officials” had been redacted from the records — which would violate the law, and which Justice Department officials denied.
Among the critics was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who cited the Fox reporting in an exasperated post late Friday to X.
“The whole point was NOT to protect the ‘politically exposed individuals and government officials.’ That’s exactly what MAGA has always wanted, that’s what drain the swamp actually means. It means expose them all, the rich powerful elites who are corrupt and commit crimes, NOT redact their names and protect them,” Greene wrote.
Senior Justice Department officials later called in to Fox News to dispute the report. But the removal of a file published in the Friday evening release, capturing a desk in Epstein’s home with a drawer filled of photos of Trump, reinforced bipartisan concerns that references to the president had been illegally withheld.
In a release of documents from the Epstein family estate by the House Oversight Committee this fall, Trump’s name was featured over 1,000 times — more than any other public figure.
“If they’re taking this down, just imagine how much more they’re trying to hide,” Schumer wrote on X. “This could be one of the biggest coverups in American history.”
Several victims also said the release was insufficient. “It’s really kind of another slap in the face,” Alicia Arden, who went to the police to report that Epstein had abused her in 1997, told CNN. “I wanted all the files to come out, like they said that they were going to.”
Trump, who signed the act into law after having worked to block it from getting a vote, was conspicuously quiet on the matter. In a long speech in North Carolina on Friday night, he did not mention it.
However, White House officials and Justice Department leaders rejected the notion that the release was incomplete or out of compliance with the law, or that the names of politicians had been redacted.
“The only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law — full stop,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. “Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim.”
Other Republicans defended the administration. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, said the administration “is delivering unprecedented transparency in the Epstein case and will continue releasing documents.”
Epstein died in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He’d been convicted in 2008 of procuring a child for prostitution in Florida, but served only 13 months in custody in what many condemned as a sweetheart plea deal for a well-connected and rich defendant.
Epstein’s acts of abuse have attracted massive attention, including among many within Trump’s political base, in part because of unanswered questions surrounding which of his many powerful friends may have also been implicated in crimes against children. Some of those questions have swirled around Trump, who was friends with Epstein for years before the two had what the president has described as a falling out.
Evidence has emerged in recent months that suggests Trump may have had knowledge of Epstein’s crimes during their friendship.
Epstein wrote in a 2019 email, released by the House Oversight Committee, that Trump “knew about the girls.” In a 2011 email to Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to help him sexually abuse girls, Epstein wrote that “the dog that hasn’t barked is trump. [Victim] spent hours at my house with him … he has never once been mentioned.”
Trump has denied any wrongdoing.
The records released Friday contained few if any major new revelations, but did include a complaint against Epstein filed with the FBI back in 1996 — which the FBI did little with, substantiating long-standing fears among Epstein’s victims that his crimes could have been stopped years earlier.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of the president’s most consistent critics, wrote on X that Bondi should appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain under oath the extensive redactions and omissions, which he called a “willful violation of the law.”
“The Trump Justice Department has had months to keep their promise to release all of the Epstein Files,” Schiff wrote. “Epstein’s survivors and the American people need answers now.”
Politics
Sen Murphy warns ‘people are going to die’ as Congress punts on expiring Obamacare subsidies
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A bipartisan Obamacare fix remains out of reach in the Senate, for now, and lawmakers can’t agree on who is at fault.
While many agree that the forthcoming healthcare cliff will cause financial pain, the partisan divide quickly devolved into pointing the finger across the aisle at who owns the looming healthcare premium spikes that Americans who use the healthcare exchange will face.
Part of the finger-pointing has yielded another surprising agreement: Lawmakers don’t see the fast-approaching expiration of the Biden-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies as Congress failing to act in time.
“Obviously, it’s not a failure of Congress to act,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Fox News Digital. “It’s a failure of Republicans to act. Democrats are united and wanting to expand subsidies. Republicans want premium increases to go up.”
Partisan rancor over Obamacare has seeped into how lawmakers view the effect that expiring subsidies will have on their constituents. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., argued that it was a “life or death” situation, while Republicans contended that Democrats set up the very cliff they maligned. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
DEMOCRATS’ LAST-MINUTE MOVE TO BLOCK GOP FUNDING PLAN SENDS LAWMAKERS HOME EARLY
Senate Republicans and Democrats both tried, and failed, to advance their own partisan plans to replace or extend the subsidies earlier this month. And since then, no action has been taken to deal with the fast-approaching issue, guaranteeing that the subsidies will lapse at the end of the year.
A report published last month by Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit healthcare think tank, found that Americans who use the credits will see an average increase of 114% in their premium costs.
The increase can vary depending on how high above the poverty level a person is. The original premium subsidies set a cap at 400% above the poverty level, while the enhanced subsidies, which were passed during the COVID-19 pandemic, torched the cap.
For example, a person 60 years or older making 401% of the poverty level, or about $62,000 per year, would on average see their premium prices double. That number can skyrocket depending on the state. Wyoming clocks in at the highest spike at 421%.
SENATE MULLS NEXT STEPS AFTER DUELING OBAMACARE FIXES GO UP IN FLAMES
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., doesn’t want to blow up Obamacare or get rid of Obamacare subsidies, but he does want to provide Americans with more options for healthcare. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
In Murphy’s home state of Connecticut, premiums under the same parameters would hike in price by 316%.
“When these do lapse, people are going to die,” Murphy said. “I mean, I was talking to a couple a few months ago who have two parents, both with chronic, potentially life-threatening illnesses, and they will only be able to afford insurance for one of them. So they’re talking about which parent is going to survive to raise their three kids. The stakes are life and death.”
Both sides hold opposing views on the solution. Senate Republicans argue that the credits effectively subsidize insurance companies, not patients, by funneling money directly to them, and that the program is rife with fraud.
Senate Democrats want to extend the subsidies as they are, and are willing to negotiate fixes down the line. But for the GOP, they want to see some immediate reforms, like income caps, anti-fraud measures and more stringent anti-abortion language tied to the subsidies.
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who produced his own healthcare plan that would convert subsidies into health savings accounts (HSAs), argued that congressional Democrats “set this up to expire.”
SENATE REPUBLICANS LAND ON OBAMACARE FIX, TEE UP DUELING VOTE WITH DEMS
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., panned Senate Democrats’ Obamacare subsidy proposal as “obviously designed to fail.” (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
But he doesn’t share the view that the subsidies’ expected expiration is a life-or-death situation.
“I’m not taxing somebody who makes 20 bucks an hour to pay for healthcare for somebody who makes half a million dollars a year, that’s what they did,” he told Fox News Digital. “All they did was mask the increase in healthcare costs. That’s all they did with it.”
Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., similarly scoffed at the notion, and told Fox News Digital, “The Democrat plan to extend COVID-era Obamacare subsidies might help less than half a percent of the American population.”
“The Republican plan brings down healthcare costs for 100% of Americans,” he said. “More competition, expands health savings accounts. That needs to be the focus.”
Democrats are also not hiding their disdain for the partisan divide between their approaches to healthcare.
Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital that the idea that this “is a congressional failure and not a Republican policy is preposterous.”
“They’ve hated the Affordable Care Act since its inception and tried to repeal it at every possible opportunity,” he said, referring to Obamacare. “The president hates ACA, speaker hates ACA, majority leader hates ACA, rank-and-file hate ACA. And so this is not some failure of bipartisanship.”
While the partisan rancor runs deep on the matter of Obamacare, there are Republicans and Democrats working together to build a new plan. Still, it wouldn’t deal with the rapidly approaching Dec. 31 deadline to extend the subsidies.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., predicted that the Senate would have a long road to travel before a bipartisan plan came together in the new year, but he didn’t rule it out.
“It’s the Christmas season. It would take a Christmas miracle to execute on actually getting something done there,” he said. “But, you know, I think there’s a potential path, but it’ll be heavy lift.”
1985 Movie Reviews – A Chorus Line, The Color Purple, Enemy Mine, and Out of Africa | The Nerdy
Land Grab: Inside Israel’s Escalating Campaign for Control of the West Bank
Video: First Batch of Epstein Files Provides Few Revelations
President Trump Wants to Be Everywhere, All the Time
Bowen Yang leaves ‘SNL’ midway through his 8th season
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Video: ‘It Didn’t Have to Happen This Way:’ U.Va. Faculty Call for Review of Police Response to Protests
Video: First Batch of Epstein Files Provides Few Revelations
FBI Director Kash Patel says bureau ramping up AI to counter domestic, global threats
Podcast: Brussels is broke and has no government
Apple, Google tell workers on visas to avoid leaving the U.S. amid Trump immigration crackdown
Sen Murphy warns ‘people are going to die’ as Congress punts on expiring Obamacare subsidies
-
Iowa6 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Iowa1 week agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine4 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland6 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota7 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
New Mexico4 days agoFamily clarifies why they believe missing New Mexico man is dead
-
World1 week agoCoalition of the Willing calls for transatlantic unity for Ukraine