Politics News TheFoxPosts.com

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the ruling an "awful extreme and unprecedented decision." Top Democrats on Saturday slammed the ruling by a federal judge in Texas suspending the FDA approval of Mifepristone, though they were short on possible legislative solutions to protect access to the abortion drug. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Washington Sen. Patty Murray looked to paint the controversial decision by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk as a political move meant to advance a Republican anti-abortion agenda. Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed judge, ruled regulators improperly approved the abortion pill mifepristone, one of the most common methods of abortion in the U.S., 23 years ago. The Department of Justice appealed the decision late Friday, with Attorney General Merrick Garland stating he strongly disagreed with Kacsmaryk's position. "This is an awful extreme and unprecedented decision. Let's be clear: This is about the Republica...

Many Republicans have remained mum on a Texas federal judge's controversial ruling against the abortion pill mifepristone In the days after a federal judge in Texas ruled to reverse the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of the widely used abortion medication mifepristone, Democrats have erupted in outrage. Republicans, who for years made abortion restrictions a centerpiece of their politics, have remained mostly mum on the issue that looks set for a Supreme Court showdown. Some in the GOP have suggested they are now on the "wrong side" of abortion, which polling has shown can be a leading issue to motivate voters -- against possible restrictions. By contrast, leading conservatives last June swiftly celebrated the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade, praising the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision as putting the issue of abortion back in the hands of the people -- in the states -- and not having it determined by the court. ...

The dispute over North Carolina's House map is now moot -- and the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on whether the lines had to be redrawn The U.S. Supreme Court decision on Tuesday rejecting a theory that would grant state legislatures broad authority to unilaterally craft and enforce election laws has little impact on the actual issue that sparked the case -- North Carolina's House map. The state Legislature, controlled by Republicans and able to set congressional district lines without the Democratic governor's signoff, initially drew a map favoring their party after the 2020 census. But those lines were swiftly the center of a lawsuit, and the state Supreme Court ordered new ones to be created. Republicans appealed, ultimately bringing their case to the U.S. Supreme Court where they argued that they had broad, ultimately power to define the terms of federal elections, including congressional maps. That "independent state legislature" theory was shut down in ...

Justice Department appeals a federal judge's ruling striking down the "rebuttable presumption" of asylum ineligibility. The Biden administration expressed a federal judge's ruling striking down the Biden administration's asylum policy that established a "rebuttable presumption" of asylum ineligibility. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said he disagreed with the court's ruling. "It does not limit our ability to deliver consequences for unlawful entry," he said. "Do not believe the lies of smugglers. Those who fail to use one of the many lawful pathways we have expanded will be presumed ineligible for asylum and, if they do not have a basis to remain, will be subject to prompt removal, a minimum five-year bar on admission, and potential criminal prosecution for unlawful reentry." Shortly after the decision was handed down, the Justice Department said it stood by the policy. "We remain confident in our positi...

The Supreme Court rolled back affirmative action at U.S. colleges and universities, ruling they can no longer take race into consideration when admitting new students. The Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back affirmative action at U.S. colleges and universities, ruling they can no longer take race into consideration when admitting new students. The court held, in a 6-3 opinion for the conservative majority written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The controversial ruling was both publicly praised and criticized. Author and Vanderbilt University African American studies professor Michael Eric Dyson spoke to ABC News’ Linsey Davis about why he believes the Supreme Court made the wrong decision. LINSEY DAVIS: So you just heard Vivek's take there. Your reaction? MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah. He's a bright guy. I'm sure he's well intending, ...

Amy Klobuchar on abortion pill ruling: 'Unbelievable' Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., called a judge's ruling rescinding FDA approval of an abortion pill "unbelievable." Three Trump-appointed judges "should not be making the decision for women across the country," Klobuchar said on This Week. "What is going to be next? Is that judge going to not like birth control pills? Are we going to have a judge that doesn't like [cholesterol medication] Lipitor? There's a reason that Congress gave the FDA the power to make these decisions about safety." MORE: Supreme Court Justice Alito issues administrative stay of abortion pill ruling Klobuchar said if the Supreme Court upholds this decision, women will be "harmed." "It's women that are going to have to take a bus across the country from Texas to Minnesota or to Illinois. That's the problem right now," Klobuchar said. Klobuchar said abortion access and laws will ...