Fox News

The conservative Parkland shooting survivor and pro-Second Amendment activist who was dropped by Harvard University after offensive remarks and racial slurs he made as a 16-year-old came to light appeared on “The Story with Martha MacCallum” Monday where he apologized and asked for forgiveness.

“I’m extremely sorry for it and I wish I could take it back but I can’t. All I can do now is seek to right the wrong. And I know forgiveness isn’t given, It’s earned. I know that the person who wrote those things is not who I am today,” Kyle Kashuv told guest host Ed Henry.

Kashuv revealed Monday on Twitter that Harvard rescinded his admission after the recent resurfacing of remarks he called “offensive,” “idiotic” and “inflammatory.”

The student said he made the comments before the mass shooting — which he says made him a different person.

FLASHBACK: PARKLAND SHOOTING SURVIVOR KYLE KASHUV EMERGES AS CONSERVATIVE ROLE MODEL, SECOND AMENDMENT CHAMPION

Harvard officials told Fox News they don’t publicly comment on the individual admission status of applications, but Kashuv posted what he said was the letter Harvard sent him, dated June 3.

“The Admissions Committee has discussed at length your account of the communications about which we asked, and we appreciated your candor and your expressions or regret for sending them,” the letter read. “As you know the Committee takes seriously the qualities of maturity and moral character. After careful consideration, the Committee voted to rescind your admission to Harvard College.”

HARVARD RESCINDS OFFER TO KYLE KASHUV, PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT PARKLAND SURVIVOR, DUE TO PAST REMARKS, HE SAYS

At one point during the interview Kashuv Brough up Harvard’s history comparing himself to the university, saying they have founded by slave owners and because they had a dark history that didn’t mean the institution was “irredeemable.”

Henry gave Kashuv a “time-out” noting that there was a big difference between Harvard’s history and Kashuv’s more recent comments.

10 STUNNING DISPUTES OVER FREE SPEECH BETWEEN STUDENTS, FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS

“You mentioned they had slave owners in the 1600s. You used the n-word what, a year, year and a half ago?” Henry said.

Henry pressed Kashuv on “what specifically has changed” for him over the last two years between his past remarks and now.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“It’s because I matured tremendously. I am no longer am in the friend group where we act immaturely like idiotic children. It’s the fact that I have condemned racism in every opportunity that I can in this public life I didn’t really ask for,” Kashuv said.

“I never wanted and never quite frankly wanted to be in the position. I’m not an entertainer, I’m not an actor. I’m a kid who went through a tragedy who saw the suffering that the community went through and doesn’t want to see it for any other community.”

Fox News’ Nicole Darrah contributed to this report.

Source: Fox News Politics

The State Department announced Monday it will cut new foreign aid to the “Northern Triangle” countries — Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador — unless their governments take “concrete action” to stem the flow of migrants towards the United States.

The aggressive move came less than two weeks after the Trump administration reached a last-minute deal with Mexico, which called for the country’s deployment of more troops to its own southern border and tighter asylum protocols. The U.S. and Mexico reached the accord shortly before the White House was set to impose a series of escalating tariffs on its southern neighbor.

President Trump previously pushed in March to cut $615 million in aid to the Northern Triangle, noting that the nations have been home to some of the migrant caravans that have marched through Mexico to the U.S. border to claim asylum, in some cases fraudulently.

On further review, the State Department said the administration has decided to continue to provide $432 million for anti-gang and health initiatives. That aid came from the fiscal year 2017 budget, and the State Department said it was logistically challenging to cancel some of the initiatives.

MEXICO VOWS TO HELP CENTRAL AMERICAN MIGRANTS AMID CRACKDOWN

However, the latest plans showed roughly $370 million from the fiscal year 2018 budget will no longer be spent on the Northern Triangle and approximately $185 million in funding from the 2017 budget will be withheld, at least for now.

A State Department official told Fox News a re-evaluation would be concluded no later than April 2020.

Mexican law enforcement stopping a migrant caravan that had crossed the Mexico-Guatemala border, near Metapa, Mexico, earlier this month. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte, File)

Mexican law enforcement stopping a migrant caravan that had crossed the Mexico-Guatemala border, near Metapa, Mexico, earlier this month. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte, File)

“We will not provide new funds for programs in those countries until we are satisfied that the Northern Triangle governments are taking concrete actions to reduce the number of migrants coming to the U.S. border,” State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said. “This is consistent with the president’s direction and with the recognition that it is critical that there be sufficient political will in these countries to address the problem at its source.”

She added, “Working with Congress, we will reprogram those funds to other priorities as appropriate.”

Ortagus noted that “previously awarded grants and contracts will continue with current funding.”

Many Democrats called the decision callous and unproductive.

“As feared, a presidential tantrum will limit our nation’s ability to actually help address the challenges forcing people to flee to the U.S.,” Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., tweeted.

The Northern Triangle’s immigration policies have long rankled the Trump administration. Last December, the U.S. pledged more than $10 billion in aid to Central America and Mexico to help keep migrants put. Later that month, Trump tweeted: “…Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are doing nothing for the United States but taking our money.

“Word is that a new Caravan is forming in Honduras and they are doing nothing about it,” Trump added. “We will be cutting off all aid to these 3 countries — taking advantage of U.S. for years!”

The State Department in March then notified Congress that it would look to suspend 2017 and 2018 payments to the trio of nations.

Meanwhile, Mexico has offered refuge to migrants with credible fears as thousands remain in the country while they await court dates for asylum petitions in the U.S. The understaffed and underfunded Mexican refugee commission has faced a backlog of cases.

But, in recent months, police and immigration have stepped up enforcement in southern Mexico, setting up highway checkpoints, raiding a caravan of mostly Central American migrants and trying to keep people off the northbound train known as “the beast.”

At the same time, Mexicans have grown increasingly intolerant of the large numbers of migrants passing through their country in an attempt to reach the United States.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A June poll in Mexican newspaper El Universal showed that Mexicans are less receptive to allowing undocumented migrants to come in, or to stay on permanently as refugees, than they were in October, when caravans with thousands of Central American migrants were winding their way north.

Fox News’ Rich Edson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: Fox News Politics

Is there a civil war brewing among Democrats over impeachment?

The Five” addressed the topic Monday, with co-host Juan Williams saying Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is motivated to impeach President Trump by “fury” and that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is motivated not to impeach him so that Democrats can win in the 2020 elections.

“There is a big difference between impeaching President Trump and removing him from office. And I sometimes think when I hear Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speak, it’s out of just, like, a fury at Trump. It really does represent close to 70 percent of the Democratic base, Dana, that would like to see him impeached,” Williams said to his co-host Dana Perino.

“But again there is a big difference between impeachment and having the Senate convict the president and remove him from office.”

PELOSI FLEXES MUSCLE OVER PARTY IN IMPEACHMENT DEBATE, BUT ‘DAM’ COULD COLLAPSE

Co-host Jesse Watters jumped in and made the point that the notion of impeachment was really being pushed by the press.

“The whole news cycle is driven by impeachment through the press. The press wants to book Democrats who want to impeach the president. They invite them on, they say ‘impeach’ and then they do a segment on it,” Watters said pointing out that the much-reported impeachment protests that were scheduled this past weekend were a flop.

HBO’S JOHN OLIVER BECOMES LATEST FIGURE TO TALK UP TRUMP IMPEACHMENT

“Then the media runs a poll on impeachment and then they do a segment on the poll.  Then the media asks Donald Trump about impeachment. He says it, they do a segment. They ask the Democrats running for president about impeachment and then they do a segment.  It’s this self-perpetuating news cycle about impeachment but it’s in a bubble.”

The “Watters’ World” host pointed out that Americans don’t care about the topic.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“The rest of the country is like, ‘I am going to get a beer on the porch. I don’t care anymore,'” Watters added.

Source: Fox News Politics

HBO’s John Oliver has become the latest  media figure to back an impeachment push against President Trump.

During Sunday’s episode of his show, “Last Week Tonight,” Oliver went on a 20-minute rant while stopping to explain the mathematics and logistics behind removing Trump from power.

JUSTIN AMASH GOP PRIMARY CHALLENGER: ‘COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS’ TO CONSIDER TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT

Before breaking down the numbers, Oliver ran a clip of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explaining the definition of impeachment and mocked her for referencing the musical Bye Bye Birdie.

“If this situation were to be a musical it wouldn’t be Bye Bye Birdie. It would obviously be Grease, where a rapey guy with weird hair treats women like sh-t and yet somehow gets everything he ever wanted,” Oliver said.

“But I will say, it is true that many people don’t fully understand what impeachment involves. So we thought that tonight might be a good time to discuss what it is, why it may be warranted, and what the risks might be in carrying it out.”

Oliver painstakingly explained the history behind presidential impeachments and pointed out only two U.S. presidents have ever been impeached — Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. Both of whom remained in office. He then walked viewers through the step-by-step process of impeachment, using colored graphs to illustrate his points.

ROMNEY: MUELLER REPORT DID NOT SHOW OBSTRUCTION, ‘I DON’T THINK IMPEACHMENT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO’

“Very basically, here is how the impeachment process works,” Oliver began. “Typically it begins with an inquiry in the House of Representatives during which a committee investigates and holds hearings into a president’s conduct. And if a majority decides they found impeachable offenses, they vote to impeach. But that is not the end. That merely moves the process to the Senate where a trial is held. And the president is only removed from office if a two-thirds majority votes for that.”

Oliver took the segment a step further and began running down the list of reasons why Trump should be booted from the White House.

“The Constitution says grounds for impeachment are treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And that last phrase can trip people up. Even people who might really want to research its exact definition,” he said.

“High crimes and misdemeanors can include acts that are not actual crimes. It is a broad term for serious misconduct,” Oliver added. “And Congress is currently looking into a wide range of Trump’s potential misconduct … but one area where we already have considerable evidence against Trump is obstruction of justice.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Oliver claimed Trump committed an impeachable offense when he contemplated removing special counsel Robert Mueller, but remained skeptical about any concrete action being taken against him.

“If a president can shut down an investigation, he can basically do anything with no consequences. It’s a big, big deal,” Oliver said. “The problem is — this has been in the public record for nearly two months now and it’s failed to make much of an impression.”

Source: Fox News Politics

The State Department revealed Monday that it has identified “multiple security incidents” involving current or former employees’ handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and that 23 “violations” and seven “infractions” have been issued as part of the department’s ongoing investigation.

The information came in a letter to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is responsible for overseeing the security review.

“To this point, the Department has assessed culpability to 15 individuals, some of whom were culpable in multiple security incidents,” Mary Elizabeth Taylor, the State Department’s Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs, wrote to Grassley. “DS has issued 23 violations and 7 infractions incidents. … This number will likely change as the review progresses.”

ATTEMPT TO HACK CLINTON EMAILS STUNNED AIDES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, DOCS SHOW

The State Department, calling the matter “serious,” said it expected to conclude the investigation by Sept. 1. The department acknowledged that the probe was unusually time-consuming.

“Given the volume of emails provided to the Department from former Secretary Clinton’s private email server, the Department’s process has been necessarily more complicated and complex requiring a significant dedication of time and resources,” Taylor wrote.

Taylor also noted that disciplinary consequences were pending.

“In every instance in which the Department found an individual to be culpable of a valid security violation or three or more infractions, the Department forwarded the outcome to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s Office of Personnel Security and Suitability (DS/PSS), to be placed in the individuals’ official security file,” Taylor wrote. “All valid security incidents are reviewed by DS and taken into account every time an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information is considered.

“This referral occurred whether or not the individual was currently employed with the Department of State and such security files are kept indefinitely,” Taylor added. “Consistent with the referral policy, for individuals who were still employed with the Department at the time of adjudication, the Department referred all valid security violations or multiple infractions to the Bureau of Human Resources.”

The State Department declined to release the names of the employees, consistent with its procedures. The department promised another update once its review is completed.

NEWLY RELEASED EMAILS SHOW CLINTON TEAM DISCUSSING ‘PRIVATE’ COMMS CHANNEL WITH ISRAEL

Clinton’s private email use has remained in the spotlight, as the DOJ looks into potential misconduct in the handling of federal authorities’ surveillance and intelligence operations in 2016. Then-FBI Director James Comey said in 2016 that Clinton’s handling of classified information was “extremely careless” — remarks that were watered down from their original draft — but that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges.

It emerged earlier this year that then-FBI general counsel James Baker testified that he thought Clinton should have been prosecuted until he was convinced otherwise “pretty late” in the investigation.

Huma Abedin with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in June 2011.

Huma Abedin with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in June 2011. (REUTERS, File)

And, last month, a trove of partially redacted FBI documents from the agency’s investigation into whether Clinton mishandled classified information — a probe known as the “Midyear Exam” — revealed that top Clinton aides were shocked at apparent attempts to hack her private email servers.

The document release revealed numerous episodes in which the Clinton team either suspected it had been hacked or seemingly acknowledged that security measures had come up short.

“omg,” top Clinton aide Huma Abedin wrote to Justin Cooper, the technology pro overseeing Clinton’s private home-based email servers, when he told her shortly after midnight on Jan. 9, 2011, that “someone was trying to hack us.”

And in March, it was revealed that the Justice Department “negotiated” an agreement with Clinton’s legal team that ensured the FBI did not have access to emails on her private servers relating to the Clinton Foundation. Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok testified about the arrangement during a closed-door appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last summer, according to a transcript released this year.

“A significant filter team” was employed at the FBI, Strzok said, to “work through the various terms of the various consent agreements.” Limitations imposed on agents’ searches included date ranges and names of domains and people, Strzok said, among other categories.

The agreement was reached, Strzok said, because “according to the attorneys, we lacked probable cause to get a search warrant for those servers and projected that either it would take a very long time and/or it would be impossible to get to the point where we could obtain probable cause to get a warrant.”

Former Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who chaired the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee until 2017 and is now a Fox News contributor, said the arrangement signaled that agents wanted willful blindness.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“What’s bizarre about this, is in any other situation, there’s no possible way they would allow the potential perpetrator to self-select what the FBI gets to see,” Chaffetz said, noting that the FBI was aware that the servers contained classified information in unclassified settings. “The FBI should be the one to sort through those emails — not the Clinton attorneys.”

The DOJ’s goal, Chaffetz said, was to “make sure they hear no evil, see no evil — they had no interest in pursuing the truth.”

Source: Fox News Politics

President Trump‘s slumping support in some hypothetical 2020 matchups is not cause for concern as the election approaches, according to the RNC chairwoman.

Ronna McDaniel downplayed the importance of polls on “Outnumbered Overtime” Monday, before pointing to a blast from the 2016 past in an attempt to prove her point.

“It’s way too early to be looking at polls,” she said. “Scott Walker was leading heading into 2016 … Scott Walker was the big one to beat.

FOX NEWS POLL: DEMOCRATS WANT A STEADY LEADER, BIDEN LEADS TRUMP BY 10 POINTS

“It was Jeb and then it was Scott Walker.”

Walker was viewed as the favorite among the party’s more conservative base, while he trailed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee among all Republicans in a June 2015 Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Flash forward to the 2020 race, where the latest Fox News Poll shows five Democratic contenders leading Trump in potential head-to-head contests.

Candidates besting Trump in that survey include former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

McDaniel claimed those candidates’ standings will fluctuate as the campaign season continues.

“People come and go and they fade,” she said.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are going to have these candidates try and contrast with them to make up some ground.”

McDaniel pointed to Warren as evidence the Democratic field’s standings are ever-changing.

“I think Elizabeth Warren is taking some of Bernie’s steam away,” the former Michigan GOP chairwoman claimed.

“I think she’s articulating his message, she’s putting plans forward. She’s definitely rising.”

Source: Fox News Politics

Former Vice President Joe Biden defended bipartisanship with Republican lawmakers, saying if a Democratic president can’t find compromise might as well “go home” and start a “real physical revolution.”

Speaking at the Poor People’s Campaign summit on Monday, the Democratic frontrunner was asked by MSNBC host Joy Reid about how he would handle a GOP-controlled Senate headed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has vowed to halt progressive legislation.

“Joy, I know you’re one of the ones that thinks it’s naive to think we have to work together,” Biden responded. “The fact of the matter is if we can’t get a consensus, nothing happens except the abuse of power by the executive.”

The former Delaware senator expressed how it sometimes takes a “brass knuckle fight” and reflected how he successfully campaigned during the 2018 midterms to help flip the House in favor of Democrats.

TRUMP DISMISSES BIDEN’S 2020 CHANCES, KNOCKS HIS ‘MENTAL CAPACITY:’ ‘EVERYBODY KNOWS HE DOESN’T HAVE IT’

BIDEN LEADS TRUMP BY 10 POINTS IN NEW FOX NEWS NATIONAL POLL

“You have to go out and beat these folks if they don’t agree with you by making your case,” Biden explained. “And that’s what presidents are supposed to do, persuade people, move the public as to what’s going on.”

Biden then argued that there’s always a “rationale for compromise” with Republicans, pointing to the Obama-era Recovery Act where he boasted “three Republican votes” that he garnered in order to get it passed.

“If you start off with the notion there’s nothing you can do, well, why don’t you all go home then?” Biden continued. “Or let’s start a real physical revolution if you’re talking about it. Because we have to be able to change what we’re doing within our system.”

BIDEN HOLDS EDGE OVER TRUMP IN SOLIDLY RED TEXAS: POLL

He later told the crowd that you “can shame people to do things the right way.”

At the same event, Biden predicted he can win states no Democrat has won in presidential elections in decades.

“I plan on campaigning in the South. I plan on — if I’m your nominee — winning Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, believe it or not,” Biden said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

No Democrat has carried South Carolina in a presidential election since Jimmy Carter more than four decades ago. Biden, who has developed deep ties over the years in the state where he often vacations, enjoys a large lead over his primary rivals in the state’s crucial first-in-the-South presidential primary.

Source: Fox News Politics

In a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court case announced Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a lengthy call for his colleagues to overturn “demonstrably erroneous decisions” even if they have been upheld for decades — prompting legal observers to say Thomas was laying the groundwork to overturn the seminal 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.

Thomas’ blunt opinion came in a case concerning the so-called “double-jeopardy” doctrine, which generally prohibits an individual from being charged twice for the same crime. But both pro-life and pro-choice advocates quickly noted the implications of his reasoning for a slew of other future cases, including a potential revisiting of Roe.

“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it,” Thomas wrote, noting that lower federal courts should also disregard poor precedents. Thomas went on to add that precedent “may remain relevant when it is not demonstrably erroneous.”

ILLINOIS REPEALS BAN ON PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS, AS PRO-LIFE GROUPS LAMENT ‘DEATH PENALTY’ FOR THE UNBORN

Kristen Clarke, the President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told Fox News that Thomas’ comments were part of a larger attack on abortion rights.

“One can’t ignore the timing of Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion which comes at a moment when we are seeing a coordinated and relentless attack on Roe v. Wade across the country,” Clarke said. “The laws that have been adopted in several states violate the Court’s settled precedent in Roe. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas has made clear his willingness to reject precedents that he personally deems incorrect, a position that unnecessarily politicizes the Court.

“Justice Thomas’s view is fundamentally at odds with the way in which the Supreme Court has generally operated,” Clarke said. “It is a view that threatens to further undermine the integrity of the Court and weaken the stability of the institution.”

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion Monday that precedent should always be secondary to the Constitution. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion Monday that precedent should always be secondary to the Constitution. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Neal Katyal, a Georgetown Law professor and former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, warned that Thomas’ reasoning could have far-reaching implications.

“Justice Thomas is essentially laying the intellectual groundwork for a massive revisiting of settled precedents,” Katyal wrote. “This can prove to be very, very dangerous.”

Thomas’ argument began by noting that the role of federal courts is primarily to uphold the Constitution above all else — and if that means overturning long-held precedents set by other federal courts, Thomas wrote, so be it.

“The Constitution tasks the political branches—not the Judiciary—with systematically developing the laws that govern our society,” Thomas wrote. “The Court’s role, by contrast, is to exercise the ‘Judicial Power,’ faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the laws enacted by those branches.”

“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it.”

— Justice Clarence Thomas

English common law, Thomas said, relied on a precedent-focused principle called “stare decisis,” meaning “let the decision stand.” But unlike English common law, Thomas asserted, “we operate in a system of written law in which courts need not—and generally cannot—articulate the law in the first instance.”

Thomas went on to address several counter-arguments, including the idea that precedent allows for more consistent legal determinations, and more certainty for litigants. He cited, for example, arguments to that effect by Justice Stephen Breyer in previous cases.

“As I see it, we would eliminate a significant amount of uncertainty and provide the very stability sought if we replaced our malleable balancing test with a clear, principled rule grounded in the meaning of the text,” Thomas countered. “The true irony of our modern stare decisis doctrine lies in the fact that proponents of stare decisis tend to invoke it most fervently when the precedent at issue is least defensible.”

Thomas concluded: “In my view, if the Court encounters a decision that is demonstrably erroneous—i.e., one that is not a permissible interpretation of the text—the Court should correct the error, regardless of whether other factors support overruling the precedent. … A demonstrably incorrect judicial decision … is tantamount to making law, and adhering to it both disregards the supremacy of the Constitution and perpetuates a usurpation of the legislative power.”

Throughout the day, analysts noted that Thomas’ reasoning could potentially affect more than the abortion debate.

Wrote Slate legal analyst Mark Stern: “[Thomas’] repudiation of stare decisis isn’t really about Gamble. It’s aimed at a clear set of precedents—those enshrining a constitutional right to abortion access and same-sex marriage.”

Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin, in an interview with Reuters, remarked, “Everyone is concerned about this because they’re thinking about Roe v. Wade.”

Thomas, in the Gamble case, ended up joining the court’s 7-2 majority in ruling that individuals can be prosecuted by both the state and the federal government for the same crime, without violating the constitution’s double jeopardy rules.

MLK JR’S NIECE REBUKES GILLIBRAND ON ABORTION: ‘CIVIL RIGHTS BEGIN IN THE WOMB’

The idea, backed by generations of precedent, is that the states and federal government are separate sovereign entities, and that a crime against one is distinct from a crime against the other. That precedent, Thomas ruled, was not demonstrably erroneous, and therefore the majority was justified in following it.

Pro-choice activists dressed like characters in 'The Handmaid's Tale' protested Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, saying he would be a decisive vote against Roe v. Wade.

Pro-choice activists dressed like characters in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ protested Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, saying he would be a decisive vote against Roe v. Wade. (Getty Images)

Only the unusual pairing of Neil Gorsuch and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying that argument was essentially a loophole to circumvent the Constitution’s prohibition against double jeopardy.

“A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result,” Gorsuch wrote.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito was more deferential to precedent, saying “special justification” is needed to overturn precedent, even where the Constitution would serve as a lodestar.

Nevertheless, Alito noted that “the strength of the case for adhering to [previous] decisions grows in proportion to their ‘antiquity,'” meaning that newer precedents are less secure than older ones.

Monday’s opinion was Thomas’ second in as many months to hearten pro-life advocates. In May, Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in a separate case that the Supreme Court would soon have to address the constitutionality of pro-life abortion laws head-on.

The justices, by a 7-2 vote in that case, upheld an Indiana law requiring the cremation or burial of fetal remains — but they declined to take up the constitutionality of a law that would have barred abortion based on disability, sex, or race.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation,” Thomas wrote, “the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s,” Thomas wrote. “From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics.”

Source: Fox News Politics

Former Vice President Joe Biden boldly predicts he can win states no Democrat has won in presidential elections in decades.

“I plan on campaigning in the South. I plan on — if I’m your nominee — winning Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, believe it or not,” Biden vowed Monday, as he spoke at a gathering in the nation’s capital of the Poor People’s Campaign’s Moral Action Congress.

BIDEN LEADS TRUMP BY 10 POINTS IN NEW FOX NEWS NATIONAL POLL

No Democrat has carried South Carolina in a presidential election since Jimmy Carter more than four decades ago. Biden, who has developed deep ties over the years in the state where he often vacations, enjoys a large lead over his primary rivals in the state’s crucial first-in-the-South presidential primary.

But capturing the conservative state in a general election would be a high hurdle. Republicans have won the state in every presidential election dating back to 1968, except for Carter’s victory in 1976.

No Democrat has won Georgia since Bill Clinton in 1992. And other than Barack Obama’s victory in 2008, North Carolina has been solidly in the GOP column in each presidential election dating back to 1968.

Biden, the clear front-runner right now in the race for the Democratic nomination, also has his eyes on two more states President Trump carried in 2016.

“I believe we can win Texas and Florida, if you look at the polling data now,” he said.

While Florida is a crucial battleground state – Obama captured it in 2008 and 2012 but Trump won the state’s 29 electoral votes in 2016 – Texas is solidly red. Carter’s 1976 victory was the last time a Democratic nominee won Texas.

But a Quinnipiac University Poll conducted in late May and earlier this month indicated Biden with a slight 48-44 percent edge over Trump in a hypothetical 2020 general election match-up.

BIDEN HOLDS EDGE OVER TRUMP IN SOLIDLY RED TEXAS: POLL

And a new public opinion survey by the University of Texas and the Texas Tribune suggested that voters were split on whether they’d support Trump for re-election.

Democrats in the Lone Star State are also energized by now-presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s near upset of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in last year’s midterm elections.

Biden made his comments after he was asked if he would spend significant time campaigning in the South and winning support from poor white, black and Latino voters.

THE LATEST ON THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FROM FOX NEWS

The Poor People’s Campaign is steered the Rev. William Barber II, the black religious leader in the nation’s capital. His gatherings have become a must-stop for the 2020 White House hopefuls.

In his opening remarks, Biden took aim at the president, saying Trump’s created a climate where different classes and races are looking for scapegoats to blame for their own struggles.

“The charlatans have been able to pit black folks against white folks against Latinos, etc.,” Biden declared.

The former vice president called that brand of divisive politics “a bunch of malarkey.”

But Biden warned that “the exploitation is more extreme than its ever been because the gigantic income inequality that exists here in America. It’s greater than at any time since the turn of the last century.”

Biden also made a pitch for universal access to Medicaid.

He proposed that “every single person in the United States has access to Medicaid right off the bat.”

Source: Fox News Politics

A new vacancy on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is giving President Trump a new opportunity to alter the DNA of the once-famously liberal court.

Judge Carlos Bea is intending to take a step back and claim senior status on the Ninth Circuit, opening up a spot for a new full-time active judge. One possibility for the position is Patrick Bumatay, currently a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of California.

TRUMP RESHAPES LONG-LIBERAL 9TH CIRCUIT, AS REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED JUDGES GAIN SEATS ON COURT

Bumatay was nominated to the circuit court last year, but California Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein objected and the Senate did not take action. Trump then nominated Bumatay to the Southern District of California Court instead, but a similar lack of progress leaves him available for Bea’s seat on the bench.

While it is traditional for a nominee’s home-state senators to give their approval, it is not required, and Trump lately has bypassed the tradition in order to get conservative judges on the bench.

The sprawling Ninth Circuit — which includes California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands — has long been a focus of Trump’s. The president has railed against the court in the past for ruling against him in key cases. The court put Trump’s travel ban on hold in a ruling that was then overturned by the Supreme Court, and also ruled against the administration’s efforts to block California sanctuary laws.

In a “Fox & Friends” interview on Friday, Trump noted how he has specifically concentrated on nominating judges. Because Democrats led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have stood in the way of his picks for positions like ambassadorships, Trump said, “Mitch McConnell, myself, and the Republicans have focused on judges.”

That’s not to say Democrats have not tried to block Trump’s judicial picks. Aside from Bumatay’s time in limbo, another Ninth Circuit nominee, Daniel Aaron Bress, continues to await confirmation after Democrats claimed he was wrong for the job because he did not have strong enough professional ties to California, where he is originally from. Bress’ nomination has yet to move forward, following a May 22 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Gayle Trotter, spokesperson for the Judicial Crisis Network, told Fox News that it is not about appointing “conservative” judges, but jurists who will be fair under the law.

“President Trump promised he would appoint fair men and women who were faithful to the Constitution — including nominating such men and women to the Ninth Circuit — and Democrats should stop obstructing his efforts to delivering on his promises,” Trotter said.

Should Bumatay be nominated and get the job, he would be replacing another Republican-appointed judge, as Bea joined the Ninth Circuit after being nominated by President George W. Bush in 2003.

But Bea’s departure from his active role on the bench gives Trump yet another chance to put his mark on the court. Trump has already placed six judges there, bringing the total number of Republican-appointed judges to 11. Bress, if he is confirmed, would bring the number to an even dozen.

At the end of the Obama administration, there were 19 Democrat-appointed judges on the Ninth Circuit, compared with 16 now. There are two more vacancies yet to be filled.

The shifting makeup of the court could have bigger consequences soon.

A pending case before the court dealing with an injunction against construction of a border wall is being heard by a three-judge panel that includes two judges appointed by Republican presidents. The more judges Trump puts on the court, the greater the odds that such panels will include Republican picks in future cases.

As for Bumatay, Mike Davis, president of The Article 3 Project and former chief counsel for nominations to then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he would “would make a phenomenal addition to the Ninth Circuit.”

APPEALS COURT ALLOWS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO SEND BACK ASYLUM SEEKERS TO MEXICO TO WAIT OUT COURT PROCESS

According to the National Filipino American Lawyers Association (NFALA), Bumatay would be the first Filipino-American on a federal appellate court, and the second openly gay circuit court judge. In a statement, NFALA said they sent a letter to the White House encouraging President Trump to choose him.

“Patrick’s strong qualifications, including his breadth of experience as a federal prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a senior Department of Justice attorney make him ideal for the Ninth Circuit,” NFALA president Eric de los Santos said, adding that the organization believes Bumatay would serve “with excellence, fairness, integrity, and intellect.”

Fox News’  Gregg Re contributed to this report.

Source: Fox News Politics


[There are no radio stations in the database]