Category: fox-news/politics/judiciary

Who’s who on Trump’s short list for attorney general

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President-elect Donald Trump has wasted little time in naming top White House and Cabinet officials to serve in his administration as he prepares to be sworn in for a second term in January.

It remains to be seen, however, who Trump will pick to head up his Justice Department, perhaps one of the most important vacancies to be filled in the next administration. 

Early contenders for the post include sitting U.S. senators, former Justice Department personnel and at least one top White House adviser from Trump's first term.

Though each would bring widely different backgrounds and perspectives to the position, they all share one common trait: loyalty to the president-elect and a willingness to back his agenda and policies over the next four years. 

As the U.S. awaits a formal announcement from the president-elect, here are some of the top names being floated for the role of U.S. attorney general.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LOOKING TO WIND DOWN TRUMP CRIMINAL CASES AHEAD OF INAUGURATION

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah

Sen. Mike Lee, R- Utah, is considered to be a more conventional pick to head up the Justice Department. Lee is a high-ranking Republican in the chamber and would face a somewhat easy path to Senate confirmation, at least compared to some of the more controversial names that have surfaced.

But he may not be gunning for the role.

The Utah Republican told reporters last week that while he has been in frequent conversations with Trump's transition team, he plans to focus his sway in the Republican-majority Senate on helping gin up support for Trump's Cabinet nominees and helping select the Senate majority leader, a leadership election in which Lee, as current chair of the Senate Steering Committee, is poised to a play a major role.

"I have the job I want," Lee told the Deseret News in an interview. "And I look forward to working in the next Congress and with President Trump and his team to implement his agenda and the reform agenda that Republicans have offered and campaigned on, and it’s going to be an exciting time. We’ve got a lot of work to do."

John Ratcliffe

Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe is among the top names being considered to head up the Justice Department. 

Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor and a former U.S. representative from Texas, earned the spotlight during Trump’s first term for his outspoken criticism of the FBI and of the special counsel investigation overseen by Robert Mueller.

Trump tapped Ratcliffe in 2019 to replace Dan Coates as the Director of National Intelligence. The following year, he was tapped by the outgoing president to be a member of his impeachment team.

Mark Paoletta 

Former White House attorney Mark Paoletta served during Trump’s first term as counsel to then-Vice President Mike Pence and to the Office of Management and Budget.

Paoletta is also already working on the Trump transition team, including helping steer Justice Department policy in the next Trump administration, making him a potentially natural fit for the role.

Paoletta also made clear Monday that if tapped to head up the Justice Department, he would not tolerate any resistance to Trump’s agenda by career prosecutors and other nonpolitical officials.

In a lengthy post on the social media site, X, Paoletta said career employees are "required to implement the President’s plan" after an election, even ones they may consider unethical or illegal. 

"If these career DOJ employees won’t implement President Trump’s program in good faith, they should leave," Paoletta said, noting that employees who engage in so-called "resistance" to Trump’s agenda would be guilty of "subverting American democracy" and subject to "disciplinary measures, including termination."

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is also among the names floated to lead the Department of Justice. Bailey was tapped by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson in 2022 to be the state’s top prosecutor after then-state Attorney General Eric Schmitt was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Since taking over the state AG’s office, Bailey has led dozens of lawsuits against the Biden administration and sought to defend the state on a number of conservative issues as well. 

Those familiar with Bailey’s ascent say his lower-profile career could be an asset as a possible U.S. attorney general, especially since the role requires Senate confirmation. He could be aided here by Sens. Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, two Missouri Republicans who also served as state attorney general before their Senate service.

Since neither appear to be seeking the role of the top U.S. prosector, they could play a key role in stumping for Bailey in the Senate if his name does come up for consideration.

TRUMP TO APPOINT FORMER ICE DIRECTOR TOM HOMAN AS NEXT ‘BORDER CZAR’: NOBODY BETTER AT POLICING OUR BORDERS'

Matt Whitaker

Former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker temporarily led the Justice Department after Trump fired former Attorney General Jeff Sessions during his first term.

Asked last week in a Fox News interview whether he wants the role, Whitaker declined to answer, saying that the decision is Trump's to make. 

"He's going to want someone who he knows, likes and trusts," Whitaker said. "He's going to want someone who was there from the beginning," he added, and who can help defend against what Whitaker described as "all this lawfare nonsense." 

The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to Fox News's request for comment as to who remains on its list of candidates to lead the Justice Department.

Who’s who on Trump’s short list for attorney general

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President-elect Donald Trump has wasted little time in naming top White House and Cabinet officials to serve in his administration as he prepares to be sworn in for a second term in January.

It remains to be seen, however, who Trump will pick to head up his Justice Department, perhaps one of the most important vacancies to be filled in the next administration. 

Early contenders for the post include sitting U.S. senators, former Justice Department personnel and at least one top White House adviser from Trump's first term.

Though each would bring widely different backgrounds and perspectives to the position, they all share one common trait: loyalty to the president-elect and a willingness to back his agenda and policies over the next four years. 

As the U.S. awaits a formal announcement from the president-elect, here are some of the top names being floated for the role of U.S. attorney general.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LOOKING TO WIND DOWN TRUMP CRIMINAL CASES AHEAD OF INAUGURATION

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah

Sen. Mike Lee, R- Utah, is considered to be a more conventional pick to head up the Justice Department. Lee is a high-ranking Republican in the chamber and would face a somewhat easy path to Senate confirmation, at least compared to some of the more controversial names that have surfaced.

But he may not be gunning for the role.

The Utah Republican told reporters last week that while he has been in frequent conversations with Trump's transition team, he plans to focus his sway in the Republican-majority Senate on helping gin up support for Trump's Cabinet nominees and helping select the Senate majority leader, a leadership election in which Lee, as current chair of the Senate Steering Committee, is poised to a play a major role.

"I have the job I want," Lee told the Deseret News in an interview. "And I look forward to working in the next Congress and with President Trump and his team to implement his agenda and the reform agenda that Republicans have offered and campaigned on, and it’s going to be an exciting time. We’ve got a lot of work to do."

John Ratcliffe

Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe is among the top names being considered to head up the Justice Department. 

Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor and a former U.S. representative from Texas, earned the spotlight during Trump’s first term for his outspoken criticism of the FBI and of the special counsel investigation overseen by Robert Mueller.

Trump tapped Ratcliffe in 2019 to replace Dan Coates as the Director of National Intelligence. The following year, he was tapped by the outgoing president to be a member of his impeachment team.

Mark Paoletta 

Former White House attorney Mark Paoletta served during Trump’s first term as counsel to then-Vice President Mike Pence and to the Office of Management and Budget.

Paoletta is also already working on the Trump transition team, including helping steer Justice Department policy in the next Trump administration, making him a potentially natural fit for the role.

Paoletta also made clear Monday that if tapped to head up the Justice Department, he would not tolerate any resistance to Trump’s agenda by career prosecutors and other nonpolitical officials.

In a lengthy post on the social media site, X, Paoletta said career employees are "required to implement the President’s plan" after an election, even ones they may consider unethical or illegal. 

"If these career DOJ employees won’t implement President Trump’s program in good faith, they should leave," Paoletta said, noting that employees who engage in so-called "resistance" to Trump’s agenda would be guilty of "subverting American democracy" and subject to "disciplinary measures, including termination."

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is also among the names floated to lead the Department of Justice. Bailey was tapped by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson in 2022 to be the state’s top prosecutor after then-state Attorney General Eric Schmitt was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Since taking over the state AG’s office, Bailey has led dozens of lawsuits against the Biden administration and sought to defend the state on a number of conservative issues as well. 

Those familiar with Bailey’s ascent say his lower-profile career could be an asset as a possible U.S. attorney general, especially since the role requires Senate confirmation. He could be aided here by Sens. Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, two Missouri Republicans who also served as state attorney general before their Senate service.

Since neither appear to be seeking the role of the top U.S. prosector, they could play a key role in stumping for Bailey in the Senate if his name does come up for consideration.

TRUMP TO APPOINT FORMER ICE DIRECTOR TOM HOMAN AS NEXT ‘BORDER CZAR’: NOBODY BETTER AT POLICING OUR BORDERS'

Matt Whitaker

Former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker temporarily led the Justice Department after Trump fired former Attorney General Jeff Sessions during his first term.

Asked last week in a Fox News interview whether he wants the role, Whitaker declined to answer, saying that the decision is Trump's to make. 

"He's going to want someone who he knows, likes and trusts," Whitaker said. "He's going to want someone who was there from the beginning," he added, and who can help defend against what Whitaker described as "all this lawfare nonsense." 

The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to Fox News's request for comment as to who remains on its list of candidates to lead the Justice Department.

Jordan demands Smith retain all records related to Trump prosecutions as special counsel’s office winds down

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: The House Judiciary Committee is concerned that special counsel Jack Smith and prosecutors involved in the investigations of now President-elect Donald Trump will "purge" records to skirt oversight and is demanding they produce to Congress all documents related to the probes before the end of the month, Fox News Digital has learned. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., penned a letter to Smith on Friday, obtained by Fox News Digital. 

TRUMP VOWS TO LEAD ‘GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA' IN VICTORY SPEECH: ’FIX EVERYTHING'

"The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing its oversight of the Department of Justice and the Office of Special Counsel. According to recent public reports, prosecutors in your office have been ‘gaming out legal options’ in the event that President Donald Trump won the election," they wrote. "With President Trump’s decisive victory this week, we are concerned that the Office of Special Counsel may attempt to purge relevant records, communications, and documents responsive to our numerous requests for information." 

Jordan and Loudermilk warned that the Office of Special Counsel "is not immune from transparency or above accountability for its actions." 

"We reiterate our requests, which are itemized in the attached appendix and incorporated herein, and ask that you produce the entirety of the requested material as soon as possible but no later than November 22, 2024," they wrote. 

Jordan and Loudermilk are demanding Smith turn over information about the use of FBI personnel on his team — a request first made in June 2023 — and whether any of those FBI employees "previously worked on any other matters concerning President Trump." 

They also renewed their request from August 2023, demanding records relating to Smith and prosecutor Jay Bratt visiting the White House or Executive Office of the President; a request from September 2023 for records related to lawyer Stanley Woodward—who represented Trump aide Walt Nauta; a request from December 2023 for communications between Attorney General Merrick Garland and the special counsel’s team; and more. 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LOOKING TO WIND DOWN TRUMP CRIMINAL CASES AHEAD OF INAUGURATION

The Justice Department is looking to wind down two federal criminal cases against President-elect Trump as he prepares to be sworn in for a second term in the White House — a decision that upholds a long-standing policy that prevents Justice Department attorneys from prosecuting a sitting president. 

DOJ officials have cited a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel filed in 2000, which upholds a Watergate-era argument that asserts it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the Justice Department to investigate a sitting president. 

It further notes that such proceedings would "unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency."  

"In light of the effect that an indictment would have on the operations of the executive branch, ‘an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office,’" the memo said in conclusion.

Smith was leading an investigation into the alleged retention of classified records. Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges stemming from that probe. 

The case was eventually tossed completely by a federal judge in Florida, who ruled that Smith was improperly and unlawfully appointed as special counsel. 

Smith also took over an investigation into alleged 2020 election interference. Trump also pleaded not guilty, but his attorneys took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue on the basis of presidential immunity. 

The high court ruled that Trump was immune from prosecution for official presidential acts, forcing Smith to file a new indictment. Trump pleaded not guilty to those new charges as well. Trump attorneys are now seeking to have the election interference charges dropped in Washington, D.C., similarly alleging that Smith was appointed unlawfully. 

‘Pulling an Alvin Bragg’: Left-wing DA’s ‘flimsy’ suit against Elon Musk’s $1M giveaway slammed by expert

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Left-wing Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner filed a lawsuit against tech billionaire Elon Musk over his $1 million giveaway amid the highly anticipated Pennsylvania election – a suit that is being slammed as riddled with legal issues by an expert. 

"As a prosecutor for the city and county of Philadelphia, Krasner has no legal ability to prosecute anyone for alleged violations of federal law. So instead, he is pulling an Alvin Bragg by concocting a flimsy legal theory that Musk somehow is violating Pennsylvania’s lottery law," Cully Stimson, deputy director of the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center of Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, wrote in a Daily Signal commentary piece published Monday. 

Stimson compared the suit to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charging former President Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records, which prosecutors linked during the spring 2024 trial to an election scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election. Trump was found guilty in the case, and has since maintained his innocence as legal experts rallied that the case was an "absolute joke" and "witch hunt" against the 45th president. 

Krasner filed a lawsuit Monday against Musk and his super PAC, the America PAC, for "running an illegal lottery in Philadelphia" and across the state. 

Musk announced earlier this month that voters in battleground states, such as Pennsylvania or Michigan, were eligible for a $1 million a day giveaway after signing the America PAC’s petition backing the Constitution. Musk endorsed Trump in July, and recently joined him on the campaign trail to rally support for his re-election bid, most notably in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania. 

PHILADELPHIA DA LARRY KRASNER IMPEACHED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAWMAKERS IN GOP-LED EFFORT: 'CRISIS OF CRIME'

The initiative outlines that it only applies to registered voters in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin and North Carolina, and if they sign the petition. 

"The First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments," the petition reads. 

HERE'S HOW ELON MUSK'S $1M A DAY GIVEAWAY TO BATTLEGROUND VOTERS WORKS

Musk has already announced winners for the giveaway, including one in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on Saturday. 

"Oct 22 - Nov 5: Each day, one petition signer from either PA, GA, NV, AZ, MI, WI, or NC will earn $1,000,000," the America PAC website reads. 

Stimson wrote that Krasner is "one of George Soros’ bought-and-paid-for district attorneys" who "doesn’t care about the law" and launched the suit to quench his alleged thirst "for media attention."

"Musk isn’t paying individuals to register to vote; he is paying already-registered voters to sign a petition, which is entirely lawful," Stimson explained. 

ELON GOES ON CAMPAIGN BLITZ AGAINST GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, VOWS TO REVEAL BIZARRE ALLEGED SCHEMES

"​​In his civil complaint against Musk, Krasner asserts that by ‘lulling’ registered voters into giving their personal identifying information such as their postal address, cellphone number, and email address, voters have paid Musk consideration – as when a person gives a dollar to purchase a Mega Millions lottery ticket," he continued. 

In his suit, Krasner cited the 1976 case "Commonwealth v. Lane," which detailed that under Pennsylvania law, a lottery is deemed unlawful under three elements: "(1) a prize to be won; (2) a winner to be determined by chance; and (3) the payment of a consideration by the player." 

Stimson said the first two elements are satisfied when considering the Musk giveaway, but "the third element is nowhere to be found."

"Consideration is the payment of money, which is completely lacking in the Musk proposal. Registered voters didn’t pay money to sign the petition. Their personally identifiable information isn’t, under either the Lane case or state law, ‘consideration,’" Stimson explained. 

PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT DEBATES FUTURE OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL FOR PHILADELPHIA PROSECUTOR LARRY KRASNER

Stimson, whose background includes extensive investigations into "rogue" prosecutors who have politically benefited from donations made by left-wing billionaire George Soros, added in his commentary piece that it’s a "bit rich of Krasner to sue Musk, since the Philadelphia DA is a two-time violator of state campaign finance laws."

Stimson cited previous research that found Krasner received $1.7 million from Soros-funded groups during his 2017 election, and an additional $1.25 million from the same groups during his 2021 re-election campaign. 

FAR-LEFT PHILADELPHIA DA LARRY KRASNER'S COMPANY OWES $86,000 IN UNPAID TAXES

"In both races, he broke campaign finance laws and got into hot water with Philadelphia’s Board of Ethics."

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in 2019 that Krasner settled with the ethics board over accepting more than $11,000 in excess in-kind contributions from the Soros-backed Real Justice PAC. Krasner paid a $4,000 fine and agreed to reimburse the city for the excess in-kind contribution from the PAC, while the Real Justice PAC agreed to pay $8,000 in penalties.

Following his 2021 re-election, Krasner’s campaign and the Real Justice PAC again admitted to breaking campaign finance law. Krasner agreed to pay $10,000 in penalties, while the Real Justice PAC agreed to pay $30,000 in penalties, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that year.

WIDOW OF SLAIN PHILADELPHIA POLICE OFFICER BLAMES PROGRESSIVE POLICIES OF DA LARRY KRASNER FOR HUSBAND'S DEATH

"Krasner has been a disaster as Philadelphia’s district attorney," Stimson wrote. "... Crime has exploded in Philly as a result of Krasner’s pro-criminal, anti-victim, cop-hating policies."

"In the five years before he was elected, an average of 271 homicides occurred per year. Since he was elected in 2017, an average of 368 homicides per year have occurred – an ‘extra’ 97 dead bodies per year."

Fox News Digital reached out to Krasner’s office for a response to Stimson’s arguments, but did not receive a reply. 

Following Musk’s announcement of the giveaway this month, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro set the stage that it would likely come under legal scrutiny. 

"I think there are real questions with how he is spending money in this race, how the dark money is flowing, not just into Pennsylvania, but apparently now into the pockets of Pennsylvanians. That is deeply concerning," Shapiro said on NBC’s "Meet the Press."

PHILADELPHIA'S FORMER DEMOCRATIC MAYOR SLAMS SOROS-FUNDED DA FOR REFUSING TO CALL MURDER SURGE A 'CRISIS'

He continued, "Look, Musk, obviously has a right to be able to express his views, and he’s made it very, very clear that he supports Donald Trump, and we have a difference of opinion. I don’t deny him that right, but when you start flowing this kind of money into politics, I think it raises serious questions that folks may want to take a look at."

"You think it might not be legal, yes or no?" host Kristen Welker asked.

Shapiro responded, "I think it’s something that law enforcement can take a look at."

Musk announced the eighth winner of the giveaway on Saturday in Lancaster, home to Pennsylvania’s rolling hills dotted with Amish farms, where he again touted the petition backing the Constitution. 

"We're trying to get attention for this very important petition to support the Constitution. And, it's like, if we, you know – we need the right to free speech; we need the right to bear arms," Musk said at the rally in Lancaster.

"So we're going to be giving out a million dollars every day through Nov. 5," he continued. "And also, all you have to do is sign the petition in support of the First and Second Amendments. That's it. You don't even have to vote. It'd be nice if you voted, but you don't have to. And then just basically sign something you already believe in, and you get a test to win a million dollars every day from now through the election."

Amy Coney Barrett asserts her voice, carries on Scalia legacy

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

After her fourth term on the bench, Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett is asserting her voice and following in the footsteps of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a pioneer of originalism on the high court and her former boss. 

Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump in October 2020 to fill the seat of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, surprised some this term by voting in a few key cases with the Democrat-appointed minority.

But legal experts say that the former law professor is proving that her interpretation of the Constitution is consistent with what the Founding Fathers intended, and that disagreements between her and her fellow conservative justices should be "celebrated."

"This term we have seen all the originalist justices engaged in a healthy debate about how to apply tenets of originalism and textualism in many different contexts," Carrie Severino, president of JCN, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "And that is a sign that the originalist project has matured, and that the justices are fleshing out these important principles, and it should be celebrated."

AOC FILES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST JUSTICES ALITO, THOMAS, ALLEGES 'UNCHECKED CORRUPTION'

For many years, a widely lauded and accepted judicial philosophy was that the Constitution was a "living and breathing document." But conservative legal practitioners contested that approach as too volatile to political whims, judicially inappropriate and a departure from what the founders actually wrote in their original intent. 

But in the 1980s, the concept of an originalist interpretation of the law started to grow, largely driven by Reagan-appointed Justice Scalia.  

"It used to be that the late, great, Justice Scalia was basically the only originalist on the court," said John Shu, a constitutional lawyer and former official in both Bush administrations. "Then, in 1991, it became Scalia and Thomas and sometimes Rehnquist. In 2005 and 2006, it became Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.  And since 2017, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and of course Justice Barrett joined the Court, and she is very much following in Justice Scalia’s, for whom she clerked, footsteps."

Some experts say that approach bore out this term when Barrett sided with her liberal colleagues in the case in which the majority ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal "obstruction" crime. 

That case will likely aid the legal arguments of former President Trump who was charged with obstruction, among other crimes, by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT SAYS PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF SCOTUS IS 'WELCOME'

In her dissent, Barrett wrote that by "narrowing" a federal statute, the Court "failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches."

"[S]tatutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway," Barrett wrote, adding that the Court’s majority abandoned that approach and does "textual backflips to find some way— any way—to narrow the reach" of the statue at issue. 

Severino says that in her dissent, Barrett was "exactly in line" with Scalia's approach to that type of clause.

"Within originalism and textualism, there are people who in some particular instances may disagree on how those principles apply in a specific case," Severino wrote. "So it's not surprising that Barrett is going to have a different approach than Thomas or Alito or Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. They all have their own slightly different flavors, different personality, to exactly how they apply those," Severino said. 

"It’s a great sign that the justices are openly discussing what's the best way to apply originalism and textualism, the original intent and the actual text, which is what good and fair judges are supposed to do," said Shu.

"Justice Barrett’s opinions from this term indicate that the Scalia approach, over time, carried the day," he said.  "He also was great at showing how the originalist perspective is the common-sense perspective, and the one most faithful to the law and to a judge’s responsibilities."

Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, noted that Barrett "was law professor for a long time, so she has a different background than everybody else on the court."

"She's very thoughtful, she's very intellectual, she's very theoretical. She wants to get the theory right. She's a professor's justice," he observed. 

"She’s still very much in the Scalia mode. She's thinking about how to apply history and tradition and what that test means, and getting the theory of the matter right," he said. 

Which he said "was clear in the immunity decision, where she agreed fully with Robert's majority opinion, but said it would have been better to reframe this as an unconstitutional application of criminal law, rather than calling it immunity."

BIDEN'S SCOTUS CRITIQUES LARGELY UNPRECEDENTED, EXPERTS SAY, CONTRAST WITH CLINTON'S DEFERENCE IN 2000

"She's not a moderate. She's not a centrist. She’s not moving left," Shapiro said. "She’s an originalist and a textualist."

Jennifer Mascott, law professor at Catholic University and former Justice Department official, said Barrett’s writings this term "show a highly intelligent, careful principal jurist who is looking herself, as all the justices do, independently at the questions before her, and just taking the time for the American public to explain in important cases where she may have done something differently than the majority opinion." 

Notably, Barrett authored a concurrence in the case in which the high court unanimously ruled that Colorado could not remove Trump from 2024 election ballot. 

"The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up," she wrote. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home."

The former Notre Dame professor is not without criticism on the right, with some conservative observers saying she can be too cautious or timid when it comes to upsetting precedent.

Giancarlo Canaparo, senior fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, says Barrett is "extremely mindful of the difference between conservative judges and conservative politicians, and she's trying very hard to be a conservative judge."

"And that means, I think, for her, not only being faithful to the text of the law and the Constitution, but also making sure that the court doesn't move on a particular issue until it’s sort of aware of the downstream effects on this doctrine or that doctrine," he said.

Canaparo observed that Barrett "needs to feel like she knows everything that can possibly be known" about a matter in order to make a move. 

"She's going to take positions when she feels like she knows everything, which is often in in those few areas where she wrote that she wrote about as a professor, but in other cases, we see areas where she's unwilling to make moves based on whatever information she has on hand, which you know that can be a good thing sometimes. Sometimes not."

But "sometimes, like a general, you've got to go with what information you have," he said. 

"Sometimes it seems like maybe she doesn't actually want a particular party to win, or she doesn't want to make a particular move, and so she uses the claim that there isn't enough information in the record as sort of an out."

Canaparo's critique aside, though, conservative legal watchers appear to sign on to Bush administration veteran John Shu's opinion that, "all in all, I think it’s great that a former Scalia clerk is now on the Court to carry on his legacy."

Federal judge resigns from lifetime-tenured role after just 4 years

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Alaska has resigned after investigators determined he created a hostile work environment, engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a former law clerk and lied about it to his colleagues.

Joshua Kindred resigned from his post as a U.S. District Court judge for Alaska effective Monday after serving just four years on the bench. His resignation letter did not give reasons as to why.

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on the same day released a 30-page order that detailed its findings into Kindred’s alleged misconduct. 

"We conclude that Judge Kindred committed misconduct by creating a hostile work environment for his law clerks. That hostile work environment included ‘unwanted, offensive, and abusive sexual conduct, including sexual harassment,’" the order states.

JUDGE ARRESTED AT ATLANTA NIGHTCLUB REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR ‘JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT’

The order described more than 700 pages of text messages between Kindred and his law clerks, many of which were deemed "highly inappropriate." 

In one message, the order states that Kindred told his clerks, "Who gives a f--- about ethics, we need to get you paid." In another, the order says he joked about "punching multiple Supreme Court justices," and bringing Patrón tequila, heroin and "whip-its" – a slang term for a type of inhalant drug – to a dinner party in his chambers.

The council said it also found that Kindred had an "inappropriately sexualized relationship" with a female law clerk during her clerkship and after she became an assistant U.S. attorney for Alaska. 

Kindred engaged in sexual contact with her on two occasions, according to the order. The female former clerk said the second incident, which occurred at an Airbnb where Kindred was staying, was not consensual. Kindred has said it was consensual.

"The Council need not make a finding on whether the Airbnb incident was consensual to conclude that Judge Kindred committed misconduct," the order said.

GOP-LED STATES ASK SCOTUS TO TEMPORARILY BLOCK BIDEN'S STUDENT LOAN HANDOUT PROGRAM

When asked about the sexual encounter with his former law clerk during the investigation, Kindred lied to Chief Judge Mary Murguia, the Special Committee and the Council, denying the encounter ever happened until he was put under oath, according to the judges’ order.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, wrote on social media that Kindred’s resignation "is more than appropriate."

"Judges need to be held to the highest of standards and Mr. Kindred fell well short of that mark," Murkowski wrote. "I will be working quickly to advance a replacement nominee for consideration."

Though Kindred has resigned, the matter is not closed. The council referred the case to the Judicial Conference to consider impeachment.

Kindred was appointed to the position by former President Trump in 2019 and was sworn into office in 2020.

Hilarious Jayapal gaffe proves Dems find saying ‘insurrection’ to be hard

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A Democrat serving in the House of Representatives was at the center of an apparent blunder Wednesday when she claimed former President Donald Trump "incited an erection."

The comment from Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., came during the House Judiciary Committee's consideration of a resolution that, if passed, would set up a full House vote on whether to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden.

"I think we're all outraged about many things, but if we're gonna talk about outrageous things that have happened or things that have never happened, let's talk about the fact that President Trump incited an erection."

Quickly realizing what she had said, Jayapal began laughing and said, "Maybe that, too."

JAYAPAL TELLS FELLOW DEMS NOT TO 'OUT-REPUBLICAN THE REPUBLICANS' ON IMMIGRATION AMID FUNDING TALKS

"You can talk about that too, I guess," Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., chimed in.

"Maybe we should talk about that, too," Jayapal responded.

Correcting herself and moving on from the awkward situation, Jayapal said, "The president incited an insurrection."

Jayapal is not the first Democrat to use the word "erection" instead of "insurrection" when talking about the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and President Trump's actions on that day.

In January 2021, while pushing for an impeachment trial of Trump on the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., claimed the former president was responsible for an "erection."

"Make no mistake, there will be a trial and when that trial ends, senators will have to decide if they believe Donald John Trump incited the erection – insurrection – against the United States," Schumer said at the time.

HUNTER BIDEN MAKES SHOCKING APPEARANCE AT HIS OWN CONTEMPT HEARING

Jayapal's colleague, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has also been guilty of using the word "erection" to describe the events from more than three years ago.

Schiff's slip-up came during a November 2021 appearance on "The View," where he responded to pressure from one host who asked him whether he regretted talking up the discredited Steele dossier.

"But let’s not use that as a smokescreen to somehow shield Donald Trump’s culpability for inviting Russia to help him in the election, which they did, for trying to coerce Ukraine into helping him in the next election, which he did, into inciting an erection…"

Catching himself immediately, Schiff corrected himself and used the word "insurrection" before continuing his comments.

Schiff also slipped up and used the word during a January 2021 appearance on CNN, where he claimed then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., incited an "erection."

Tennessee Supreme Court justice announces retirement

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Roger Page announced on Monday that he plans to retire in August 2024.

In a statement from Tennessee's court system, the 68-year-old said his time as a judge has been humbling, inspiring and the honor of a lifetime. He was first appointed to the high court by former Republican Gov. Bill Haslam in 2016. His last day will be Aug. 31.

"The Tennessee judiciary is truly a family, and I have been fortunate to walk this path with my great friends in the judiciary," Page said in a statement. "I will miss all of them and treasure their friendship."

FORMER WISCONSIN CHIEF JUSTICE ORDERED TO TURN OVER RECORDS RELATED TO PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT ADVISEMENT

The decision will give Republican Gov. Bill Lee a chance to appoint his third justice on the five-member court. The five current justices were all appointed by Republican governors.

Page has spent more than 25 years as a judge at the trial court, intermediate appellate and Tennessee Supreme Court levels. Haslam appointed him to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in 2011 before picking Page for the state Supreme Court about five years later. Page served as the chief justice from 2021 to 2023.

During his tenure, Page helped secure funding for electronic filing for the court system, advocated for access to pro bono services and promoted livestreaming of appellate arguments, according to the statement.

SANDERS TAPS ARKANSAS GOP CHAIRMAN, EX-FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FOR STATE SUPREME COURT SEAT

Page grew up on a farm in the Mifflin area of West Tennessee. Before his legal career, he worked as a chief pharmacist and assistant store manager for Walgreens.

"If I hurry, I might have time for one more career," Page said.

He praised the work done by Tennessee's judiciary system during the pandemic, including advances in technology.

"It has been incredibly gratifying to watch the start of an evolution across the judiciary," Page said. "I look forward to following those changes and to catching up with my judicial family in between trips I have been planning for years, watching my grandkids play sports, and spending time with my wonderful wife."

In Tennessee, the governor's picks for Supreme Court must also be confirmed by state lawmakers. Republicans have supermajority control in both legislative chambers. Additionally, Supreme Court justices face "yes-no" retention elections every eight years. Voters retained Page and the other four justices at the time during the 2022 election.

Wisconsin Supreme Court weighs challenge to constitutionality of state-funded school choice programs

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Supporters of Wisconsin's taxpayer-funded school choice and independent charter school programs urged the state Supreme Court on Tuesday to reject a lawsuit seeking to declare the programs unconstitutional, saying such a move would create chaos for tens of thousands of families with students currently enrolled.

Private schools, parents with students who attend them, advocacy groups and the state chamber of commerce argue in court filings that the 32-year-old program has benefitted families for a generation and the effort to undo it is politically motivated, after the Supreme Court's majority shifted to liberal control earlier this year.

"A mere change in membership should not create an opportunity to challenge precedent," supporters of school choice programs, being represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, contend. "A single election is not a mandate to radically change the law."

FORMER WISCONSIN CHIEF JUSTICE ORDERED TO TURN OVER RECORDS RELATED TO PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT ADVISEMENT

The lawsuit was filed two months after the state Supreme Court flipped to 4-3 liberal controlled. With that change, Democrats hope the court will rule in their favor in pending cases seeking to overturn Republican-drawn legislative electoral maps and undo the state’s ban on abortion.

The school choice lawsuit comes after decades of complaints from Democrats who have argued that the program is a drain on resources that would otherwise go to public schools.

The nation's first school choice program began in Milwaukee in 1990. Then seen as an experiment to help low-income students in the state's largest city, the program has expanded statewide and its income restrictions have been loosened, and it served more than 52,000 students at a cost of $444 million in the last school year.

Democrats including Gov. Tony Evers, who previously served as state superintendent of education, have been longtime critics of the program. But Evers this summer agreed to increase spending on the programs as part of a larger education funding package that was also tied to a deal sending more money to Milwaukee and local governments.

The first question for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide is whether to take the case directly or first have it work its way through lower courts. The plaintiffs want the high court to take it directly, which would mean a ruling could come in months rather than perhaps years if it had to go through the lower courts.

The lawsuit was brought by several Wisconsin residents and is being funded by the liberal Minocqua Brewing Super PAC. Kirk Bangstad, who owns the Minocqua Brewing Co., is a former Democratic candidate for U.S. House and state Assembly. His brewery produces beer with politically themed names that tout Democrats, such as "Evers Ale," a nod to the governor.

Bangstad's super PAC has funded previous lawsuits targeting Republicans.

The lawsuit asks the court to stop three state officials from continuing the choice programs: Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jill Underly and Secretary of the Department of Administration Kathy Blumenfeld.

All three of them faced a Tuesday deadline to file arguments.

The lawsuit argues that the state’s revenue limit and funding mechanism for voucher school programs and charter schools violate the Wisconsin Constitution’s declaration that public funds be spent for public purposes.

It also contends that vouchers defund public schools, do not allow for adequate public oversight and do not hold private schools to the same standards as public schools.

WISCONSIN SENATE APPROVES 3 NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN ELECTION SECURITY PUSH

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that Milwaukee’s voucher program was legal. But the current lawsuit alleges that as the program has expanded, the situation has dramatically changed.

At the start of last school year, enrollment in choice programs was more than 29,000 in Milwaukee, 3,900 in Racine and 17,000 elsewhere in the state, according to the state Department of Public Instruction. Another 2,200 disabled students received vouchers under a special needs scholarship program.

Ending the programs now would cause "chaos," for tens of thousands of families, argued 22 parents of voucher-enrolled students, private schools and choice advocacy groups.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative activist law firm, on Tuesday released a report claiming that if the school choice program ended, the Milwaukee school district would have to open about 17 additional buildings to accommodate the influx of students. Statewide, more than 3,700 teachers would have to be hired in public schools, the report said.

Former Wisconsin Chief Justice ordered to turn over records related to Protasiewicz impeachment advisement

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A Wisconsin judge on Friday ordered the former chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to produce records related to her work advising the Republican Assembly speaker on whether to impeach a current justice.

Former Chief Justice Patience Roggensack was one of three former Supreme Court justices asked by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to give him advice on pursuing impeachment. Vos has floated impeachment against liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz based on how she rules on a pending redistricting lawsuit Democrats hope will result in new legislative electoral maps.

The liberal watchdog group American Oversight filed a lawsuit seeking records from Vos and the three former justices. Vos and two of the former justices, David Prosser and Jon Wilcox, turned over records. That included an email from Prosser to Vos advising against impeachment. Vos turned over more than 21,000 pages of documents last week, American Oversight attorney Ben Sparks said at a Friday hearing.

WISCONSIN ASSEMBLY DELAYS VOTE ON LIKELY VETO-BOUND $2B INCOME TAX CUT

Wilcox told The Associated Press he did not produce a report, but verbally told Vos impeachment was not warranted.

The only former justice who did not produce any records was Roggensack. She has not said what her advice was to Vos and he has refused to say what it was.

When American Oversight attempted to serve Roggensack with a subpoena at her home, an elderly man who answered the door said he did not know anyone by that name and closed the door, Sparks said in court while quoting a statement from the process server.

On Friday, Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington issued an order giving Roggensack 30 days to produce any records she has.

"Wisconsin has had and continues to have a long and storied tradition on the responsibility of open government," Remington said.

All of the former justices have a responsibility to produce records they maintain related to their work "whether they understood it or not in accepting the invitation to opine on the question presented," he said.

Roggensack's attorney, Robert Shumaker, did not return a phone message or email seeking comment.

Vos originally said he was considering impeachment if Protasiewicz did not recuse herself from the redistricting case. She did not recuse. Vos did not move to impeach her, following the advice against impeachment from the former justices. But now he’s suggesting he may attempt to impeach her if she does not rule in favor of upholding the current Republican-drawn maps.

The Wisconsin Constitution reserves impeachment for "corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors."

EX-WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FIGHTS SUBPOENA OVER PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT ADVICE

Republicans have argued Protasiewicz has pre-judged the case based on comments she made during the campaign calling the current maps "unfair" and "rigged."

Protasiewicz, in her decision not to recuse from the case, said that while stating her opinion about the maps, she never made a promise or pledge about how she would rule on the case.

The redistricting lawsuit, filed the day after Protasiewicz joined the court in August and flipped majority control to 4-3 for liberals, asks that all 132 state lawmakers be up for election next year in newly drawn districts.

The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 64-35 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. Republicans adopted maps last year that were similar to the existing ones.

Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most gerrymandered nationally, with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote, according to an AP analysis.