Category: fox-news/politics/judiciary/supreme-court

Choosing your opponent: Why Democrats are bashing the Supreme Court now

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Biden can’t choose his direct opponent next year. But Mr. Biden and Democrats can certainly manufacture one. 

The Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2024.

Liberals are incensed at the latest spate of Supreme Court opinions. Several of the decisions went against causes important to the left.

The High Court undid the President’s plan to cancel $400 billion in student loans. LBGTQ groups are infuriated that the Court ruled that a Colorado web designer doesn’t have to make sites for same-sex weddings. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action requirements in higher education.

IMPEACHMENT ONCE AGAIN LOOMS LARGE IN CONGRESS

Expect Democrats to resort to a page in their playbook which likely helped the party gain a seat in the Senate and nearly cling to control in the House in 2022. The Dobbs opinion on abortion last year emerged as a game changer. It energized progressives and pro-choice Democrats and independents. The ruling infused the polls with a stream of voters, serving as a political life preserver to the party. 

Democrats have a lot more to campaign on in 2024 when it comes to the Supreme Court. Questions about the ethics of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas abound. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts declined to take part in a hearing called in the spring by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., about the conduct of the justices. The panel is prepping another clash with the Court as Senate Democrats write a bill about the ethics of justices.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told CNN the justices are "destroying the legitimacy of the Court." She endorses issuing subpoenas for justices.

"They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself. And that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on the danger of this court and the abuse of power in this Court, particularly as it is related to the entanglements around conflicts of interest as well," said Ocasio-Cortez.

This is why left-wing Members hope to expand and potentially "pack" the Court with jurists who may do the bidding of progressives.

"Expanding the court is constitutional. Congress has done it before and Congress must do it again," said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

Markey is right. The composition of the Supreme Court has bounced around for decades. The size of the Court is not established by the Constitution. Congress set the makeup of the Court via statute. Congress would periodically increase or decrease the number of seats on the Court for political reasons.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created a Supreme Court comprised of six justices. But in 1801, Congress reduced the size of the Court to five justices. That was an effort to undercut President Thomas Jefferson from filling the Supreme Court with one of his nominees. Don’t forget that the House of Representatives elected Jefferson as president in what is known as a "contingent election" following a dispute over the Electoral College. 

MUST-DO: WHAT CONGRESS HAS LEFT ON ITS PLATE AT YEAR'S HALFWAY MARK

Because of the burgeoning size of the federal judiciary, Congress added a seventh justice to help oversee lower courts in 1807. The Court grew to nine justices in 1837.

In 1863, Congress added a 10th seat to the Supreme Court for President Lincoln. This came right after the pro-slavery Dred Scott decision in the late 1850s. There was hope that Lincoln could retool the Court following the Dred Scott case by appointing a jurist aligned with the Union who opposed slavery. However, Lincoln never filled that seat. But after Lincoln’s assassination, there was fear that President Andrew Johnson may alter the court. So in 1866, Congress shrunk the size of the Supreme Court to seven justices. That prevented Johnson from nominating anyone to the Supreme Court as the nation was in the midst of Reconstruction.

Once Johnson was out of office Congress switched the number back to nine for President Ulysses S. Grant. It’s remained at nine ever since. 

But there have been efforts to change the Court’s composition since then.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to "pack" the Court in 1937. He hoped to add justices for every member of the Supreme Court who was over the age of 70.

In a radio "Fireside Chat" on March 9, 1937, FDR squarely challenged the High Court.

"The Courts, however, have cast doubts on the ability of the elected Congress to protect us against catastrophe by meeting squarely our modern social and economic conditions," said Roosevelt.

FDR accused the Supreme Court of an "arbitrary exercise of judicial power" when it came to opinions about banks and railroads. So the president hoped to change the Court by adding more youthful members who might align more closely with his political agenda.

SUPREME COURT RULINGS LIKELY TO INTENSIFY CALLS FROM THE LEFT TO 'PACK' THE COURT

"There is nothing novel or radical about this idea," said FDR, noting that Congress also changed the Court’s membership in 1869. "It seeks to restore the Court to its rightful and historic place in our Constitutional government."

But FDR failed to marshal enough support for the plan with his Fireside Chats. The public opposed the idea and the Senate Judiciary Committee emphatically torpedoed the plan.

It’s doubtful that the Democrats efforts to increase the size of the Supreme Court will go anywhere. It’s unclear that the proposal has anywhere close to 51 votes to pass in the Senate. Commandeering 60 votes to overcome a filibuster is even more daunting.

However, this gives liberals another chance to rail against Senate procedures and call for an end to the filibuster. It energizes the base and helps Democratic candidates raise money. 

That’s why this effort is more about the ballot box in 2024.

"If you want to motivate American voters, you need to scare them," said Catawba College political science professor Michael Bitzer. 

Bitzer says that Democrats used last year’s abortion opinion "as a weapon in the campaign." It helped Democrats mitigate losses in the midterms.

Bitzer believes Democrats now have the opportunity to lean on three key voting blocs to help them in 2024. Democrats will lean on younger voters upset about student loans. There are minority voters upset about the Affirmative Action decision. Finally, Democrats will rely on the LBGTQ+ community. 

However, the closing argument could be the composition of the Supreme Court itself. 

"Democrats will look at the Court and argue there are individuals that should not be on the Court and that they are on the Court and we have to play hardball," said Bitzer.

Dial back to February 2016. 

Late Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly. Former President Obama nominated current Attorney General Merrick Garland to fill his seat. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is the Majority Leader at the time. He refuses to grant Garland a hearing. McConnell says the next president should fill that seat. 

So former President Trump prevails in the 2016 presidential election and nominates Justice Neil Gorsuch. McConnell then shepherds Gorsuch’s nomination to confirmation after Democrats threatened a filibuster.

Upset by filibusters, Senate Democrats established a new precedent in the Senate in 2013 to short-circuit most filibusters of executive branch nominees, known as the "nuclear option." But they left in place the potential to filibuster a Supreme Court Justice. The Senate had never filibustered a Supreme Court nomination. However, the Senate did filibuster the promotion of late Justice Abe Fortas from Associate Justice to U.S. Chief Justice in the late 1960s. 

Facing a filibuster, McConnell deployed the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch. McConnell again relied on the nuclear option to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the fall of 2018. 

After the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, McConnell ignored what he said in 2016 about confirming justices in a presidential election year. The GOP-controlled Senate rammed through the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett days before the 2020 presidential election. 

This is why liberals are apoplectic about the Supreme Court.

"Republicans have been very willing to change the rules of the game," said Bitzer. "Democrats are slowly coming to the realization that if (Republicans) are going to play that game by their rules, then (they) need to be playing that game by (their) own set of rules."

You can’t always pick your opponent in politics. 

NBA teams often pine to secure a certain matchup in the playoffs. Team A pairs up really well against Team B. Then team A is often disappointed it didn’t get the opponent it "wanted."

You can’t manufacture a potential adversary in sports. But you can in politics. 

President Biden can’t choose his direct opponent in 2024. But Mr. Biden and Democrats can certainly aim to put the Supreme Court on the ballot in 2024.

AOC proposes subpoenas and impeachment to limit SCOTUS justices’ power following landmark decisions

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Democratic "Squad" member Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., slammed the U.S. Supreme Court for what she called an "abuse of power" Sunday, following landmark decisions this past week rejecting affirmative action and Biden's student loan debt plan. She proposed impeachment and subpoenas be put into play in order to limit the justices' power. 

"The Supreme Court is far overreaching their authority," Ocasio-Cortez said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"And I believe, frankly, that we really need to be having conversations about judicial review as a check on the courts as well," she added.

The Supreme Court issued the last decisions of its term this past week, among them rejecting the use of race as a factor in admissions, ruling in favor of a Christian web designer who refuses to make a same-sex wedding websites, and striking down President Biden’s student loan debt cancellation plan. Democrats have considered the rulings to be attacks on the left, denouncing the court as "illegitimate." 

ROBERTS SCOLDS LIBERAL JUSTICES FOR DEMONIZING RULINGS THEY DON'T LIKE: 'DISTURBING FEATURE' OF DISSENTS

"These are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep toward authoritarianism and centralization of power in the courts," Ocasio-Cortez said Sunday. "In fact, we have members of the court themselves with Justice Elena Kagan saying that the court is beginning to assume the power of a legislature."

Ocasio-Cortez has been a vocal proponent for court-packing and limiting the court's power, going as far as to tell CNN's Dana Bash that subpoenas and impeachment should be placed on the table for consideration. 

"And so I believe that if Chief Justice Roberts will not come before Congress for an investigation voluntarily, I believe that we should be considering subpoenas," the Democrat representative said. "We should be considering investigations. We must pass much more binding and stringent ethics guidelines where we see members of the Supreme Court potentially breaking the law, as we saw in the refusal with Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases implicating his wife in Jan. 6."

BIDEN SNAPS AT REPORTER AFTER STUDENT DEBT HANDOUT DEFEAT AT SUPREME COURT: 'I DIDN'T GIVE ANY FALSE HOPE'

"There also must be impeachment on the table. We have a broad level of tools to deal with misconduct, overreach and abuse of power, and the Supreme Court has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary in order to preserve their own legitimacy," she continued. "And in the process, they themselves have been destroying the legitimacy of the court, which is profoundly dangerous for our entire democracy."

Unlike Ocasio-Cortez, the president recently clarified his position against expanding the court during an interview on MSNBC on Thursday. Biden said progressive efforts to expand the Supreme Court would "politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not healthy."

SUPREME COURT RULINGS LIKELY TO INTENSIFY CALLS FROM THE LEFT TO 'PACK' THE COURT

"And I think, look, I think maybe it's just the optimist in me. I think that some of the court are beginning to realize their legitimacy is being questioned in ways that had not been questioned in the past," he continued.

AOC did, however, make headlines shortly after the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling, after she suggested the high court isn't serious about its "ludicrous ‘colorblindness’ claims" or else it would have "abolished" legacy admissions.

Ocasio-Cortez shared her thoughts on the ruling on Twitter, noting that "70% of Harvard’s legacy applicants are white" and that the Supreme Court "didn’t touch that – which would have impacted them and their patrons."

Many social media users were quick to call the congresswoman out, saying that the issue of legacy admissions – the practice of giving preference to children of alumni. - was not before the court.

Fox News' Brianna Herlihy and Kyle Morris contributed to this report. 

Supreme Court hands Biden admin major win on challenge to ICE enforcement policy

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Supreme Court on Friday handed the Biden administration a major victory on a key immigration case – ruling that GOP-led states do not have standing to challenge a policy narrowing federal immigration enforcement.

The justices, in an 8-1 ruling in U.S. v Texas, found that Republican states did not have standing to challenge a narrowing of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) priorities for arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants. 

"In sum, the States have brought an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit. They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests. Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this," the opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said.

Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenting justice.

DHS SAYS IT WILL ABIDE BY COURT ORDER BLOCKING BIDEN ICE RESTRICTIONS

The case involved the issuing of new enforcement guidelines by the Department of Homeland Security. After initially attempting to impose a 30-day moratorium on all ICE deportations, the department issued guidance that restricted ICE agents to targeting three types of illegal immigrants for arrest and deportation: recent border crossers; threats to public safety; and national security threats.

"The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them," DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in the memo. "We will use our discretion and focus our enforcement resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country's well-being require it."

The department said it was the most efficient use of limited resources to protect the American people, but critics saw it as part of a broader rolling back of enforcement and border security. The imposition of those guidelines coincided with a sharp drop in ICE deportations. In FY 2021, which included the final months of the Trump administration, ICE arrested 74,082 noncitizens and deported 59,011. Of the 74,082 arrests between October 2020 and October 2021, only 47,755 took place after Feb. 18 when the new priorities were implemented. Of removals, just 28,677 of the 59,011 deportations took place after Feb. 18.

NEARLY 17 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS LIVING IN US, 16% INCREASE SINCE 2021: ANALYSIS

Texas and Louisiana challenged the legality of the guidelines, arguing that the policy breached the Administrative Procedure Act and that they had standing because their states would incur greater law enforcement costs and a significant impact on social services due to the increase in illegal immigration that resulted. A district court found that the states did have standing and blocked the implementation of the policy.

MIGRANT NUMBERS EXCEEDED 200,000 ENCOUNTERS AGAIN IN MAY AS TITLE 42 EXPIRED

However, the high court disagreed: "The threshold question is whether the States have standing under Article III to maintain this suit. The answer is no." The opinion said that while monetary costs are an injury, the injury to allow standing must also be "legally and judicially cognizable."

It also clarified that it was not stating that states may never have standing over an alleged failure to make more arrests or prosecutions – including if the Executive Branch "wholly abandoned" its responsibilities in this regard -- but not in this case.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgment, but said they "diagnose the jurisdictional defect differently…the problem here is redressability." They say that the states lack standing "because federal courts do not have authority to redress their injuries."

Justice Alito, in his dissent, says that the majority "brushes aside a major precedent that directly controls the standing question, refuses to apply our established test for standing, disregards factual findings made by the District Court after a trial, and holds that the only limit on the power of a President to disobey a law like the important provision at issue is Congress’s power to employ the weapons of inter-branch warfare—withholding funds, impeachment and removal, etc."

Alito notes that Congress passed legislation in the 1990s that commands the detention and removal of illegal immigrants who have been convicted of certain crimes.

"The Secretary of Homeland Security, however, has instructed his agents to disobey this legislative command and instead follow a different policy that is more to his liking. And the Court now says that no party injured by this policy is allowed to challenge it in court," he says, accusing his colleagues of "a deeply and dangerously" flawed interpretation of executive authority.

The case is one of a number of immigration challenges that have faced the Court, including recent challenges to end the Title 42 public health order. It is likely to eventually consider a challenge to a "Parole with Conditions" policy, which saw migrants released without court dates due to overcrowding and was implemented as Title 42 ended in May. The policy was blocked by a federal judge just days later. 

West Virginia Supreme Court Justice John Hutchison to retire next year

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A West Virginia Supreme Court justice who joined the bench following a 2018 corruption and impeachment scandal said Thursday that he will retire after his term ends next year.

Justice John Hutchison was appointed by Gov. Jim Justice to the seat vacated by convicted former Justice Allen Loughry, then won a 2020 special election to finish the remainder of Loughry's term, which ends in December 2024.

Hutchison said he looks forward to spending time with his wife, son and grandchildren.

JUSTICE THOMAS DEFENDS TRIPS TAKEN WITH ‘DEAREST FRIENDS’ AFTER REPORTS SAY HE ACCEPTED GIFTS

"When I came to the Court in January 2019 the judicial system was starting to come out of a very dark place," Hutchison wrote in a letter to Chief Justice Beth Walker. "In the last five years the New Court has made amazing strides in reestablishing the integrity of the third branch of government."

Hutchison served as a circuit judge in Raleigh County for 24 years prior to his appointment to the five-member Supreme Court. He and Justice attended Woodrow Wilson High School in Beckley and played on the basketball team together. Hutchison swore in Justice as governor in January 2017.

Loughry was suspended from his seat over allegations that he repeatedly lied and used his public office for personal gain. He resigned after a federal jury convicted him on 11 charges, most involving mail and wire fraud over his personal use of state cars and fuel cards. He was released from prison in December 2020 after serving 20 months of a two-year sentence.

Loughry and three other justices were impeached in August 2018 over questions involving lavish office renovations that evolved into accusations of corruption, incompetence and neglect of duty. Some of the justices were accused of abusing their authority by failing to rein in excessive spending.

One justice retired after the House of Delegates approved impeachment charges against her and another retired prior to the impeachment hearings.

Walker was cleared of an impeachment charge at her Senate trial. Then, a temporary panel of justices ruled the impeachment efforts violated the separation of powers doctrine and that the Legislature lacked jurisdiction to pursue the trials. The U.S. Supreme Court in October 2019 left the ruling in place.

Chief Justice Roberts asked to testify in Senate on Supreme Court ethics amid Thomas controversy

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Thursday asked Chief Justice John Roberts testify on May 2 about ethics rules that govern the Supreme Court, as controversy continues to swirl around Justice Clarence Thomas' trips he took with a GOP mega-donor.

"I invite you, or another Justice whom you designate, to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 2, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to testify at a public hearing regarding the ethical rules that govern the Justices of the Supreme Court and potential reforms to those rules," Durbin said in a letter to Roberts on Thursday.

"In extending this invitation, I offer that the scope of your testimony can be limited to these subjects, and that you would not be expected to answer questions from Senators regarding any other matters," Durbin said.

AOC DOUBLES DOWN ON ‘IGNORING’ ABORTION RULE, CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT: ‘ABUSE OF JUDICIAL OVERREACH’

Durbin asked Roberts this month to open an investigation into Thomas over what Democrats say is his "misconduct" that was detailed in a ProPublica report.

The liberal news outlet's report accused Thomas of improperly receiving lavish vacations from Republican mega donor Harlan Crow, which reportedly included taking trips across the world on Crow's yacht and private jet without disclosing them.

Expert have dismissed the ProPublica report as political hit piece and explained that justices are permitted to accept invites to properties of friends for dinner or vacations without paying for it or disclosing it.

Thomas released a rare statement following the report saying that he has consistently followed ethics guidelines.

DEMOCRATS PRESS SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE TO INVESTIGATE CLARENCE THOMAS' TRIPS WITH GOP MEGADONOR

"Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years," Thomas said.

"As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable," Thomas said.

"I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines," he said. "These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future."

REPORT ON CLARENCE THOMAS' TRAVEL HABITS IS 'POLITICS PLAIN AND SIMPLE': EXPERT

Durbin told Roberts Thursday that "there has been a steady stream of revelations regarding Justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and, indeed, of public servants generally."

"These problems were already apparent back in 2011, and the Court’s decade-long failure to address them has contributed to a crisis of public confidence. The status quo is no longer tenable," Durbin said.

Durbin added that "there is ample precedent for sitting Justices of the Supreme Court to testify before Congress, including regarding ethics. Durbin says the Judiciary Committee most recently heard testimony from sitting Justices in October 2011, and that hearing "included robust exchanges about the Court’s approach to ethics matters."

Fox News Digital's Brandon Gillespie contributed to this report.

Supreme Court temporarily allows access to abortion pill mifepristone amid judges’ contradicting orders

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed access to the abortion pill mifepristone after a Texas ruling last week set limits to the use of the drug. 

Justice Samuel Alito halted the lower court rulings that seek to limit access to mifepristone Friday, which in turn freezes the litigation being pursued by anti-abortion groups and maintains availability. 

The conservative justice asked for challenges to the lower court ruling to be filed by Tuesday at noon.

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled last week that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) improperly approved mifepristone.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed emergency requests Friday to freeze Kacsmaryk's injunction, along with Danco Laboratories. 

The halt on the ruling gives the Biden administration more time to issue challenges.

JUSTICE THOMAS DEFENDS TRIPS TAKEN WITH ‘DEAREST FRIENDS’ AFTER REPORTS SAY HE ACCEPTED GIFTS

Kacsmaryk's ruling would limit the drug's distribution and jeopardize mifepristone's FDA approval.

The Biden administration is planning to defend mifepristone's availability in light of the landmark Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022. 

Anti-abortion groups and Republican legislators across the country are advocating for abortion bans and restrictions. 

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS CALL FOR CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT AFTER REPORTED UNDISCLOSED GIFTS FROM GOP MEGADONOR

The Supreme Court will keep the Texas ruling on hold until 11:59 p.m. Wednesday. The court is expected to issue another order by that time.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone in 2000. It has been used to terminate more than 5 million pregnancies.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Jewish friends of GOP donor associated with Justice Thomas defend him from ‘Nazi fetish’ claims: ‘Foolishness’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: Members of the Jewish community are rushing to the defense of a GOP donor who is friends with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and recently came under fire for possessing Nazi memorabilia in his massive collection of historical artifacts.

Real estate developer and Texas resident Harlan Crow has faced scrutiny from dozens of outlets for an assortment of items in his personal collection after a ProPublica investigation published last week found that Thomas’ close friendship with the billionaire allowed him to accompany Crow and his family on luxury vacations on his private jet and yacht, as well as have free stays on Crow’s vast vacation property.

Crow was labeled by the Rolling Stone as being "Nazi-obsessed," while Vanity Fair accused him of having a "Nazi fetish" due to his collection of artifacts from years past, which includes paintings of Hitler and other memorabilia from the Nazi era. Similarly, the Washingtonian launched an attack on Crow's collection of "Hitler artifacts" in an article and included a quote from one individual who said they "still can’t get over the collection of Nazi memorabilia."

But Crow's collection includes other items, according to those familiar with the lot, that his friends say members of the media overlooked — including a statue of Harriet Tubman, a painting of former President Abraham Lincoln that was painted by former President Dwight Eisenhower, a statue of vocal Nazi opponent Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a painting of Ulysses S. Grant, statues of Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin, a signed first edition of "Measure of a Man" by Martin Luther King Jr., and a statue of Sister Virgilius, who was known for her passion for educating the poor and least educated.

JUSTICE THOMAS DEFENDS TRIPS TAKEN WITH ‘DEAREST FRIENDS’ AFTER REPORTS SAY HE ACCEPTED GIFTS

Following the headlines of Crow in the media, Jewish Americans who know him best are now moving to dispel rumors that he has special interest in collecting Nazi memorabilia.

"Judaism is committed to never forgetting: to always remembering the great moments in history so that we can build upon them; and the horrors of history so that they are never repeated. We even have an entire holiday called Tisha B'Av dedicated to remembering the tragedies and persecutors in Jewish history from the destruction of the Temple to the Holocaust," Rabbi Michael Barclay of California told Fox News Digital. "It's easy for us all to remember the heroes, but as a Jewish leader, I thank God for men like Harlan Crow, who help us also remember the villains and the atrocities they committed so that they never happen again."

"As those who survived the Holocaust die off, it becomes ever more important to remember the true evil of the Nazis and not let Holocaust deniers rewrite history," Barclay added. "Less than one percent of Mr. Crow's collection include a 'rogue's gallery', and this collection is important so that we never forget the evils of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the like. And with God's help and the work of men like Mr. Crow, never let those types of evil leaders come to power again."

Similarly, Josh and Michelle Lobel, both self-described as "strongly identifying, committed and active members of the Jewish Community," said in a statement to Fox that they "cannot help but shake our heads at the profoundly ignorant and savage attacks on our close friends Harlan and Kathy Crow."

The married couple, both of whom have donated to Republicans and Democrats in the past, said they "were immediately befriended by the Crows" after they moved to Dallas two years ago and have "traveled with the Crows, dined with the Crows, been guests at their home, and vice versa."

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS CALL FOR CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT AFTER REPORTED UNDISCLOSED GIFTS FROM GOP MEGADONOR

"We have gotten to know each other’s children," the pair said. "The Crows have exhibited warmth, camaraderie, hospitality and a genuine affection for us as individuals and as Jews. Harlan and Kathy’s success combined with their love of history has enabled them to assemble a museum-worthy collection of historical books and artifacts that is a treat to behold. The museum, which is professionally curated and managed, contains priceless historical Jewish texts and a Stradivarius."

"Stories have been published implying that the Crows, because their museum contains Nazi artifacts from WWII, are Nazi sympathizers," the couple added. "What we want to address is that, as Jews, we are friends of Harlan and Kathy Crow, and we are letting the world know that this attack on their character that implies they are weird Nazi fetishists is pure foolishness and cannot withstand one shred of scrutiny. The last time the four of us were together was at an event for United Hatzalah, a multi-ethnic life-saving ambulance service operating throughout Israel. Guess which couple has been one of the major donors to this incredible organization? Maybe it’s the same Crows."

Crow's massive collection — which sprawls from his personal residence to his business properties — also includes documents signed by Christopher Columbus and former President George Washington, as well as statues of British political icons Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

Thomas defended his relationship with the Crow family and explained in a statement issued last Friday that he has always followed Supreme Court guidance.

"Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years," said Thomas, who has served on the bench for 32 years.

"As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter-century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable," he continued.

"I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines," he added. "These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future."

Fox News' Brianna Herlihy, Shannon Bream, and Bill Mears contributed to this article.

Senate Democrats demand Chief Justice Roberts open investigation into Clarence Thomas over ‘misconduct’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Senate Democrats are demanding Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts open an investigation into Justice Clarence Thomas over what they decry as his "misconduct" detailed in a ProPublica report published last week.

The liberal outlet's report accused Thomas of improperly receiving lavish vacations from Republican mega donor Harlan Crow, which reportedly included taking trips across the world on the latter's yacht and private jet without disclosing them. 

In a Monday letter, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., along with every Democrat on the committee, cited the report as proof that Thomas has not upheld the ethical standards set for a Supreme Court justice.

REPORT ON CLARENCE THOMAS' TRAVEL HABITS IS ‘POLITICS PLAIN AND SIMPLE’: EXPERT

"The report describes conduct by a sitting Justice that he did not disclose to the public and that is plainly inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any person in a position of public trust," the letter read. "The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has legislative jurisdiction over Federal courts and judges, has a role to play in ensuring that the nation’s highest court does not have the federal judiciary’s lowest ethical standards." 

"You have a role to play as well, both in investigating how such conduct could take place at the Court under your watch, and in ensuring that such conduct does not happen again. We urge you to immediately open such an investigation and take all needed action to prevent further misconduct," it added.

AOC DOUBLES DOWN ON ‘IGNORING’ ABORTION RULE, CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT: ‘ABUSE OF JUDICIAL OVERREACH’

Experts, however, have dismissed the ProPublica report as political hit piece, and explained that justices are permitted to accept invites to properties of friends for dinner or vacations without paying for it or disclosing it.

"This is just grasping at straws by the left that is desperate to tear down Justice Thomas because he now has a working originalist majority on the court," Roger Severino, vice president of domestic policy and The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital following the report's release.

"This is politics. Plain and simple," he added.

JUSTICE THOMAS DEFENDS TRIPS TAKEN WITH ‘DEAREST FRIENDS’ AFTER REPORTS SAY HE ACCEPTED GIFTS

Constitutional law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital that until recently, "even lower court judges were not required to report such trips under a personal hospitality exception."

"Justice Thomas would not have been required to report the trips under the prior rule," Turley said. "Once again, the Democrats and the media appear to be engaging in the same hair-triggered responses to any story related to Thomas. This includes the clearly absurd call for an impeachment by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."

Fox News' Andrew Mark Miller and Matteo Cina contributed to this report.

AOC doubles down on ‘ignoring’ abortion rule, Clarence Thomas impeachment: ‘abuse of judicial overreach’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., took to Twitter Sunday afternoon to double down on her belief that the Biden administration should "simply ignore" a federal court's injunction on a popular abortion pill. She also defended her push to impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

In a series of tweets, Ocasio-Cortez said the ruling was "judicial overreach" as it forces the executive branch to limit the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone. She also said judges who "repeatedly break the law" should face impeachment, without specifically naming Thomas.

"If we do not impeach when lifetime appointees repeatedly break the law in stunning shows of corruption, if we do not reign in [the] systematic abuse of judicial overreach, and if all we rely on is for those abusing power to police themselves, we have no one else to blame," AOC said on Twitter. "It must stop."

The New York Democrat said the branches of government differ in function and that Biden’s executive authority allows him to dictate how the ruling should be enforced – or not.

AOC SAYS SHE MAY DRAFT CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE IF NO ONE ELSE DOES

She also likened the current situation to the Trump administration’s inaction on restoring the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy after a court ordered him to do so.

"GOP are losing their mind over this, but there’s precedent - including their own. Courts ordered Trump to fully restore DACA. They ignored it w/ Republican support," she wrote.

The Democratic lawmaker added: "GOP operate in complete contempt for the law until they’re in a position to shred Constitutional & human rights."

In another tweet, she added: "It’s called agency non-acquiescence. The courts are now going rogue with rulings that no longer even pretend to respect precedent, jurisprudence, or limits to overreach. They are long overdue for a check & balance. Not doing so paves a dangerous road of worsening abuse of power."

AOC’s comments echoed those she shared during an interview Sunday with CNN’s Dana Bash, where she said there was an "extraordinary amount of precedent for this."

"It has happened before, the idea of consistency and governance until there is a higher court ruling," she told Bash, adding that it's "not an unprecedented thing to happen."

CNN PRESSES REP OCASIO-CORTEZ OVER CLAIMS BIDEN ADMIN SHOULD 'IGNORE' ABORTION RULING: 'STUNNING POSITION'

On Friday, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas Matthew J. Kacsmaryk directed the Food and Drug Administration to halt the approval of mifepristone while a lawsuit challenging its safety and approval made its way through court.

The ruling and subsequent suspension will take effect in seven days if a higher court, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, does not issue a stay.

During the weekend interview, the New York lawmaker said she did not think Judge Kacsmaryk or any of the courts have the authority to dictate the actions of the FDA.

"I think one of the things that we need to examine is the grounds of that ruling. But I do not believe that the courts have the authority over the FDA that they just asserted, and I do believe that it creates a crisis," Ocasio-Cortez said.

Separately, Ocasio-Cortez is also pushing to impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who she accused of "repeatedly breaking the law" after an investigation found he shared a yearslong friendship with Harlan Crow, a billionaire donor and real estate developer.

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS CALL FOR CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT AFTER REPORTED UNDISCLOSED GIFTS FROM GOP MEGADONOR

ProPublica found Thomas took several trips and received lavish gifts from Crow without disclosing them. Thomas subsequently admitted to receiving the "personal hospitality" but defended such behavior as "not reportable."

On Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez said Thomas' position on the court was an "emergency" and said he should be impeached.

The "Squad" member doubled down on her claim during Friday’s interview, after the host asked her to respond to Thomas’ statement defending his actions.

"He stated the reason and the rationale for this exemption was personal hospitality from an old friend. He said himself, in his statement, a friend of 25 years. Justice Thomas has been on the court for 30 years. What he is admitting in his statement, in an attempt to defend himself, is he began this relationship with a billionaire and received these sorts of gifts after he was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States," Ocasio-Cortez said.

She added: "I think that in and of itself indicates a very serious problem."

The New Yorker also called for Chief Justice John Roberts to come forward and explain whether he was aware and if he allowed the "corruption" to continue.

Ocasio-Cortez said the house was not in session this week, so she would use the time to strategize, but said she may ultimately be the one to introduce impeachment articles against Thomas.

Fox News’ Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.

Report on Clarence Thomas’ travel habits is ‘politics plain and simple’: expert

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A report released last week accusing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of improperly receiving lavish gifts from a wealthy friend is nothing more than a political hit job, one expert claimed.

"This is just grasping at straws by the left that is desperate to tear down Justice Thomas because he now has a working originalist majority on the court," said Roger Severino, vice president of domestic policy and The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

"This is politics. Plain and simple."

Severino's comments to Fox News Digital came in response to a ProPublica report on Thursday accusing Thomas of improperly receiving lavish vacations from Republican mega donor Harlan Crow.

The ProPublica report accuses Thomas of taking trips across the world on Crow's yacht and private jet without disclosing them and Crow acknowledged extending "hospitality" to Thomas but insisted he never asked for it and that the two families have been friends for decades.

DEMOCRATS PRESS SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE TO INVESTIGATE CLARENCE THOMAS' TRIPS WITH GOP MEGADONOR

The ProPublica report claimed that trips taken by Thomas "have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court," which Severino flatly rejected.

"There is no 'there' there because the justices have received gifts of hospitality from friends forever," Severino said. "And many of the justices have taken far more trips than Justice Thomas on somebody else's dime, including Justice Breyer, who we know has taken at least 233 trips when he was on the bench."

Severino explained that justices are permitted to accept invites to properties of friends for dinner or vacations without paying for it or disclosing it.

JUSTICE THOMAS DEFENDS TRIPS TAKEN WITH ‘DEAREST FRIENDS’ AFTER REPORTS SAY HE ACCEPTED GIFTS

"There's nothing to see here because there's been no allegation whatsoever that accepting travel to a friend's property somehow influenced Justice Thomas's decision-making," Severino said. "That's absurd. If you know anything about Justice Thomas, it's that he's not influenced by outside pressures one whit. He's guided by the law and the Constitution. Period."

Severino accused liberals of giving a "pass" to perceived bias on the left, pointing out that the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated a same-sex wedding before the Obergefell decision that federally recognized gay marriage.

"Did that perhaps indicate bias where she should have recused herself?" Severino asked. "The media was fairly silent about that and that sort of thing is much closer to the heart of impropriety in judging."

Justices are not required to disclose invitations and travel that are considered "personal hospitality" and the Supreme Court is not subject to an ethics code.

The Washington Post reported that the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the court, decided last month that judges must report travel by private jet, which Severino says is further proof Thomas was abiding by the rules.

AOC SAYS SHE MAY DRAFT CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE IF NO ONE ELSE DOES

"It actually further reinforces the fact that he'd been acting within the rules and according to the practice that has been understood for decades. Hospitality includes when somebody picks you up to take you to their house or to their property. That's what hospitality is. It just happened to be a friend that has made it in the world that's been quite successful, doesn't change the fact that he's a friend."

Constitutional law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital that until recently, "even lower court judges were not required to report such trips under a personal hospitality exception."

"Justice Thomas would not have been required to report the trips under the prior rule," Turley said. "Once again, the Democrats and the media appear to be engaging in the same hair-triggered responses to any story related to Thomas. This includes the clearly absurd call for an impeachment by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."

SUPREME COURT ALLOWS 12-YEAR-OLD TRANSGENDER GIRL TO RUN GIRLS' TRACK IN WEST VIRGINIA

In terms of the ProPublica implication that Thomas’s relationship with Crow somehow affected his rulings from the bench, Severino said, "Nobody with a straight face can say Justice Thomas has been influenced by anybody except by the Constitution and his best reading of it."

Many liberals on social media referred to the ProPublica report as a "bombshell" and some called for a resignation.

At the same time, conservatives on Twitter echoed Severino’s conclusion that there is no "there there" with the report.

"Laughably stupid," author Dinesh D’Souza wrote. "He vacations with a rich friend, who also pays for dinner! Is this the best they’ve got? Clarence Thomas’ real offense is being black and conservative."

"I read the latest high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas for going on vacation with his rich friend," conservative communications director Greg Price tweeted. "I also read the disclosure laws for judges linked in the story that says they don't have to report gifts from personal friends. ProPublica mysteriously left that out of their story."

SUPREME COURT REJECTS APPEAL FROM LOUISIANA DEATH ROW INMATE SEEKING NEW HEARING

The ProPublica article cited multiple experts who blasted Thomas’ actions, including a retired judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton who called the justice’s actions "incomprehensible."

Other experts, including legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers at NYU School of Law, adopted a tone more similar to Severino’s.

"Justice Thomas could plausibly claim, and I think has claimed (as have others) that so long as an invitation itself came from a ‘person,’ not a corporation or business entity, it was ‘personal hospitality’ and he did not need to report it," Gillers told the Washington Post.

On Friday, Thomas released a lengthy statement saying just that.

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS CALL FOR CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT AFTER REPORTED UNDISCLOSED GIFTS FROM GOP MEGADONOR

"Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years," Thomas said in a statement. "As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them.

"Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable. I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines."

Thomas acknowledged that the guidelines were changed last month and it is his "intent to follow this guidance in the future."

Turley told Fox News Digital that Thomas was "right to release a public statement."

"Justices have long been guests of private hosts," Turley said. "They are allowed to have friends and accept their hospitality. There is no evidence that Crow had business before the court. Nevertheless, expensive gifts or benefits should be disclosed, in my view, in the interests of court integrity."

"I have also long argued for a code of ethics that applies to the court. The question is where to draw the line so that judges are not constantly forced to treat every friend like a lobbyist or influence seeker."