Politics

David H. Souter, a retired Supreme Court Justice, has died

Published

8 months ago

May 9, 2025

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.”

Politics

Sen Murphy warns ‘people are going to die’ as Congress punts on expiring Obamacare subsidies

Published

8 hours ago

December 20, 2025

Press Room

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.”

Alex Miller is a writer for Fox News Digital covering the U.S. Senate.

Politics

Column: What Epstein ‘hoax’? The facts are bad enough

Published

9 hours ago

December 20, 2025

Press Room

Column: What Epstein ‘hoax’? The facts are bad enough

Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Noam Chomsky and Woody Allen were among the familiar faces in the latest batch of photographs released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee in connection to the late Jeffrey Epstein. With the Justice Department preparing to make additional files public, the images underscore an uncomfortable truth for us all: The convicted sex offender moved comfortably among some of the most intelligent men in the world. Rhodes scholars, technology leaders and artists.

Also in the release was a photograph of a woman’s lower leg and foot on what appears to be a bed, with a paperback copy of Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita” visible in the background. The 1955 novel centers on a middle-aged man’s sexual obsession with a 12-year-old girl. Epstein, a serial sexual abuser, famously nicknamed one of his private planes “The Lolita Express.” And we are to believe that some of the globe’s brightest minds could not put the dots together?

Donald Trump, who once described himself as “a very stable genius,” included.

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

Later, the two had a public falling out, and Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Great. But denial after the fact is only one side of this story. The other is harder to digest: Either the self-proclaimed “very stable genius” spent nearly two decades around Epstein without recognizing what was happening in plain sight — or he recognized it and chose silence. Neither explanation reflects on intelligence as much as it does on character. No wonder Trump’s defenders keep raising the most overused word in American politics today: hoax.

“Once again, House Democrats are selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. “Here’s the reality: Democrats like Stacey Plaskett and Hakeem Jeffries were soliciting money and meetings from Epstein after he was a convicted sex offender. The Democrat hoax against President Trump has been repeatedly debunked, and the Trump administration has done more for Epstein’s victims than Democrats ever have by repeatedly calling for transparency, releasing thousands of pages of documents and calling for further investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends.”

Jackson has a point.

Democrats were cherry-picking which photos to release, even if many of the men pictured were aligned with progressives. That includes the president, who was a Democrat when he and Epstein were running together in New York in the 2000s. Trump didn’t register as a Republican until 2009. Now whether the choice of photos and timing was designed to shield political friends or weaponize against perceived enemies isn’t clear. What is clear is that it doesn’t take a genius to see that none of this is a hoax.

The victims are real. The flight logs are real. The millions that flowed into Epstein’s bank account have wire transfer confirmation numbers that can be traced. What Democrats are doing with the information is politics as usual. And you don’t want politics to dictate who gets justice and who gets vilified.

Whatever the politicians’ intentions, Americans can decide how to react to the disclosures. And what the men around Epstein did with the information they gathered on his jet or his island fits squarely at the heart of the national conversation about masculinity. What kind of men could allow such abuse to continue?

I’m not saying the intelligent men in Epstein’s ecosystem did something criminal, but the lack of whistleblowing before his arrest raises questions about their fortitude for right and wrong. And the Trump White House trying to characterize this conversation as a partisan witch hunt — a hoax — is an ineffective strategy because the pattern with their use of that word is so clear.

We saw what happened on Jan. 6, and Trump tells us the investigation is a hoax. We hear the recording of him pressuring Georgia officials to find votes, and he tells us the investigation is a hoax. Trump campaigned on affordability issues — the cost of bacon, no taxes on tips — but now that he’s in office such talk is a hoax by Democrats. As if we don’t know the price of groceries in real time. Ten years ago, Trump told us he had proof that President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. We’re still waiting.

In his book, “Art of the Deal,” Trump framed his lies as “truthful hyperbole” but by now we should understand for him hyperbole matters more than truth — and his felony convictions confirm that some of his claims were indeed simply false.

So if there is a hoax, it is the notion that none of the brilliant men whom Epstein kept in his orbit had any idea what was going on.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint

This article generally aligns with a Center point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

The release of photographs and documents from the House Oversight Committee demonstrates that Epstein moved freely among some of the world’s most accomplished and intelligent individuals, including Rhodes scholars, technology leaders and artists.
Either these prominent men failed to recognize warning signs despite obvious indicators like Epstein’s “Lolita Express” nickname referencing a novel about child sexual abuse, or they recognized the reality and chose silence—neither explanation reflects well on their character.
Claims that this is a hoax lack credibility because the evidence is concrete: the victims are real^[1], the flight logs are documented^[1]^[3], and the millions flowing through Epstein’s bank accounts have verifiable wire transfer confirmation numbers.
The apparent lack of whistleblowing from the men in Epstein’s ecosystem before his 2019 arrest raises serious questions about their moral fortitude and willingness to stand against wrongdoing.
The Trump administration’s strategy of characterizing these disclosures as a partisan witch hunt is ineffective, given the pattern of applying the term “hoax” to numerous matters that subsequently proved to be substantiated, from investigations into January 6 to documented pressuring of Georgia officials.
Regardless of whether Democrats’ selection of which photographs to release was politically motivated, legitimate questions about masculinity and moral responsibility remain central to the national conversation.

Different views on the topic

Democrats selectively released cherry-picked photographs with random redactions designed to create a false narrative while attempting to shield their own political allies, including figures like Stacey Plaskett and Hakeem Jeffries who solicited money and meetings from Epstein after his conviction.
The timing and selection of photographs released by House Democrats appear strategically designed to weaponize the Epstein matter against political opponents while deflecting scrutiny from Democratic figures who also maintained connections to the convicted sex offender^[2].
The Trump administration has demonstrated greater commitment to transparency on the Epstein matter through the release of thousands of pages of documents and calls for further investigations into Epstein’s connections to Democratic associates.
Characterizing this as purely a partisan response overlooks the fact that prominent figures across the political spectrum, including those who were Democrats when they associated with Epstein in the 2000s, had connections requiring examination^[2].

Politics

Trump administration touts ‘most secure border in history’ as 2.5 million migrants exit US

Published

20 hours ago

December 19, 2025

Press Room

Trump administration touts ‘most secure border in history’ as 2.5 million migrants exit US

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Friday that more than 2.5 million illegal immigrants have left the United States since President Donald Trump returned to office this year, citing a sweeping immigration crackdown that it says led to the “most secure border in American history.”

In a year-end report highlighting the agency’s accomplishments, DHS claimed that illegal border crossings plunged 93% year-over-year, fentanyl trafficking was cut in half, and hundreds of thousands of criminal illegal immigrants were either arrested or deported, amounting to a dramatic shift from the Biden administration.

“In less than a year, President Trump has delivered some of the most historic and consequential achievements in presidential history—and this Administration is just getting started,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are making America safe again and putting the American people first. In record-time we have secured the border, taken the fight to cartels, and arrested thousands upon thousands of criminal illegal aliens.”

EXCLUSIVE: MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS LEAVE US IN RECORD-BREAKING YEAR UNDER TRUMP POLICIES, DHS SAYS

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said Friday that President Donald Trump “has delivered some of the most historic and consequential achievements in presidential history” since he took office on Jan. 20. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

While Trump’s first year back in office was “historic,” the administration “won’t rest until the job is done,” Noem added.

Of the 2.5 million illegal immigrants that left the country since Trump took office on Jan. 20, an estimated 1.9 million self-deported and more than 622,000 were deported, according to DHS.

The Trump administration has encouraged anyone living in the United States illegally to return to their native countries using the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Home Mobile App, which allows users to claim a complimentary plane ticket home and a $1,000 exit bonus upon their return.

BIDEN ADMIN MARKED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, ALLEGED MURDERER AS ‘NON-ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY,’ DHS REVEALS

United States Customs and Border Protection sent boats to the Chicago River amid “Operation Midway Blitz” on Thursday, Sept. 25, 2025. (Chicago Tribune/Getty Images)

CBP seized nearly 540,000 pounds of drugs this year, almost a 10% increase compared to the same time frame in 2024, DHS said, adding that the U.S. Coast Guard has retrieved roughly 470,000 pounds of cocaine, or enough to kill 177 million people.

Taxpayers have been saved more than $13 billion at DHS, the agency said, noting that several agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Secret Service have returned “to their core missions.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem touted the progress made during President Trump’s first year back in office. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Secretary Noem awarded $10,000 bonuses earlier this year to TSA officers and personnel who displayed exemplary service, overcame hardships, and displayed the utmost patriotism during the 43-day government shutdown.

DHS touted the administration’s achievements, asserting that “countless lives have been saved” this year and “the American people have been put first again.”