The History Book Club discussion

286 views
SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. > #104 - ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY

Comments Showing 1-17 of 17 (17 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Alisa (last edited Nov 13, 2011 01:02PM) (new)

Alisa (mstaz) This thread is about Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy (104) and all related topics.

Biography
Many pundits assumed that Ronald Reagan's third choice to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell would not constitute his favorite nominee for the position. Ironically, however, Anthony Kennedy shared a deeper background and association with Reagan than either of Reagan's two previous candidates. Reagan chose Kennedy for the spot only after the conservatism of Robert Bork and the embarrassing admission of Douglas Ginsburg's occasional marijuana use unhinged their respective confirmations. Still, Reagan did not resort to Kennedy out of desperation, but instead turned to him as an old associate worthy of reward. In an age when ideology and influence dominated politics, Kennedy arrived at his prominent position through simple hard work and loyalty. His consistency and competence earned him a well-deserved reputation for reliability among his peers. It also served to advance his career as an attorney and judge. Described as unassuming and friendly, Kennedy has won the respect and admiration of his colleagues over the years. Kennedy often used his personality to win over allies and form unlikely coalitions.

Anthony McLeod Kennedy was born on July 23, 1936 in Sacramento California. The second of his parent's three children, Kennedy grew up in the quiet Sacramento community that reflected the rural Central California region. Kennedy's father, Anthony J. Kennedy, worked as a lawyer and lobbyist for various businesses. He had a well-established law practice and a reputation for influence in the California legislature. His mother, Gladys McLeod, participated in many Sacramento civic activities. Kennedy attended a local Sacramento high school and Stanford University. He spent a year of his undergraduate studies at the London School of Economics and earned his A.B. and a Phi Beta Kappa key in 1958. After Stanford, Kennedy enrolled in Harvard Law School where he graduated cum laude. Kennedy returned to California after law school and worked as an associate for a law firm in San Francisco. When his father dies unexpectedly two years later in 1963, Kennedy returned to Sacramento to take over his father's practice. That same year, Kennedy wed Mary Davis, who he had known for many years. Together, they would have three children.

Kennedy spent many years working on the practice that his father had left him. Although he lacked experience as a lawyer, many of his father's important clients stayed with him out of respect for his father. Kennedy's clients soon discovered their new lawyer to have just as much, if not more, legal skills than his father. Kennedy had a talent for socializing and soon made many friends among the influential Californian politicians. He often entertained clients and guests at lavish parties and exclusive restaurants. Kennedy also donated large sums of money on behalf of himself and his clients to various political officials in the state. Through his work as a lobbyist, Kennedy befriended Ed Meese who represented the California District Attorney Association at that time. The two, sharing similarities in age and background, became close friends. Meese left to work for then-Governor Reagan in 1966 and Kennedy continued his work as an attorney and lobbyist. The two men did not lose touch with each other, however, and Kennedy continued to help Meese and Reagan in small capacities. Kennedy also taught constitutional law for a brief period during this time at the McGeorge School of Law of the University of the Pacific. In 1973, Meese recruited Kennedy to help Reagan draft a plan to cut taxes and spending. Kennedy helped draft Proposition One, a ballot initiative to limit the state's spending. He campaigned throughout the state to push the passage of the proposal and his efforts won him Reagan's favor. Despite the initiative's failure, Reagan rewarded Kennedy for his work by recommending him to President Gerald Ford for a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Kennedy joined the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1975 as the youngest federal judge of his day. Carter expanded and flooded the Ninth Circuit Court with liberal judges during his presidency and Kennedy soon became the head of the court's conservative minority. In the turbulent and often divided Ninth Circuit Court of that time, Kennedy often held majorities with few dissents. His narrow case-by-case approach and his refusal to resort to sweeping conclusions and rhetoric won him the support of many colleagues. Even his opponents admired Kennedy's well-crafted and thoughtful opinions. When Justice Lewis Powell retired in 1987, Kennedy appeared on a short list of possibilities for Reagan's nomination. Reagan nominated Robert Bork first, but the conservative Bork met fierce opposition in the Senate and ultimately failed to win confirmation. Reagan then turned to Douglas Ginsburg, a judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit. Ginsburg, however, withdrew himself from consideration after only nine days when allegations leaked concerning his past marijuana use. Reagan, on the advice of Meese, finally turned to Kennedy to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Kennedy's nomination, unlike Reagan's two previous picks, encountered little resistance. Most observers viewed him favorably and even liberals thought of him as pragmatic and fair-minded. The Senate unanimously confirmed Kennedy on February 3, 1988 and he took the oaths of office a few days later.

Kennedy's experience as a federal judge allowed him to make a quick and easy transition to the Supreme Court. Since then, Kennedy has voted consistently with his past record on many issues. He remains conservative on crime issues and still refuses to broaden the scope of his opinions. He has been effective in holding unlikely coalitions on the Court. Rehnquist often relies on Kennedy's ability to build bridges between the Court's conservatives and liberals. In this sense, Kennedy is an important pivot on which close decisions turn. Kennedy has recently become an important part of the Court's growing centrist bloc.




Personal Information
Born
Thursday, July 23, 1936

Childhood Location
California

Childhood Surroundings
California

Religion
Roman Catholic

Ethnicity
Irish

Father
Anthony Kennedy

Father's Occupation
Lawyer; lobbyist

Mother
Gladys McLeod

Family Status
Upper-middle

Position
Associate Justice

Seat
2

Nominated By
Reagan

Commissioned on
Wednesday, February 10, 1988

Sworn In
Wednesday, February 17, 1988

Home
California

source: The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 06 November 2011. .


message 2: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Books about:

The Tie Goes to Freedom Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Liberty by Helen J. Knowles by Helen J. Knowles
This is the first book-length analysis of Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Using the hot-button issues of privacy rights, race, and free speech, The Tie Goes to Freedom challenges the conventional wisdom that Kennedy's jurisprudence is inconsistent and incoherent. The book also demonstrates how he forcefully articulates a libertarian constitutional vision.


message 3: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44168 comments Mod
Terrific


message 4: by Katy (new)

Katy (kathy_h) Justice Kennedy's Jurisprudence: The Full and Necessary Meaning of Liberty

Justice Kennedy's Jurisprudence The Full and Necessary Meaning of Liberty by Frank J. Colucci by Frank J. Colucci (no photo)

Synopsis:

To understand today's Supreme Court, it is essential to understand the judicial philosophy of its swing vote. For twenty years, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has voted with the majority more than any of his colleagues. He has provided the deciding vote in cases involving politically charged issues such as affirmative action, the 2000 presidential election, religious expression, gay rights, and executive power to detain suspected terrorists. With a record reliably neither liberal nor conservative, Kennedy has generally been viewed as a capricious, indecisive moderate.

Frank Colucci, however, argues that Kennedy indeed displays a coherent approach to constitutional interpretation. Colucci digs deep into the Justice's record, offering a close analysis of not only of Kennedy's opinions on the Court but also his prior opinions on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, his off-the-bench speeches delivered before becoming a Justice, and his testimony at confirmation hearings. Colucci identifies Kennedy's core belief: that judges have a duty to ensure the word liberty in the Constitution be given its full and necessary meaning.

Colucci shows that Kennedy rejects theories of originalism and judicial restraint. Instead, Kennedy adopts a moral reading of the Constitution—similar to that championed by Ronald Dworkin and Randy Barnett as well as former Justice William J. Brennan—in which liberty and human dignity trump even democracy.

Depicting Kennedy as seeking an alternative to the perceived excesses of both the Warren Court and originalist overreaction, Colucci also compares Kennedy's rhetoric to Catholic teaching and shows him as struggling to disassociate his personal beliefs from his official duties. Separate chapters offer close readings of Kennedy's jurisprudence regarding abortion, free speech, equality, and government structure.

Colucci's persuasive account offers readers a more nuanced understanding of Justice Kennedy's arguments about the nature of personal liberty and the proper role of courts in defining and enforcing it.


message 5: by Francie (new)

Francie Grice At Least One Justice Is in Play as Supreme Court Hears Affordable Care Act Case

By ADAM LIPTAK, MARCH 4, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up the Affordable Care Act in one of the most anticipated arguments of the term, and it seemed closely divided over the fate of President Obama’s signature legislative achievement.

The court’s four liberal members voiced strong support for the administration’s position. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who cast the decisive vote to save the law in 2012, said almost nothing on Wednesday, and did not indicate his position.

In a pleasant surprise for the administration, however, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in dissent in 2012, made several comments indicating that his vote was in play.

“Perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute,” he told a lawyer for the challengers. But, he continued, “there’s a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument.”

Wednesday’s arguments suggested that the coming months will be tense for the administration as it waits to hear whether about seven million low­ and middle­ income people in some three dozen states will continue to receive subsidies to help them buy health insurance. Should the court rule that
subsidies were not authorized by the health law, most of those people would no longer be able to afford insurance. And insurance markets in those states could collapse.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said it would be “unwise” to draw conclusions based on the questioning by the justices. Such efforts, he said, can produce “some erroneous predictions about the likely outcome.”

After the 2012 arguments, many commentators said the law was doomed. It survived.

The court is not likely to issue its decision in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14­114, until late June or early July. The 2012 health case ruling came on the last day of the term.

For the rest of the article, see Source below.

Source: New York Times: Supreme Court Arguments, Healthcare Law


message 6: by Francie (new)

Francie Grice Independent Lens | Limited Partnership | Justice Kennedy Changes His Mind | PBS

IndependentLens
Published on Jul 7, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imovw...

Source: Youtube


message 7: by Lorna, Assisting Moderator (T) - SCOTUS - Civil Rights (new)

Lorna | 1864 comments Mod
Picking One Justice, Trump Has Eye on Choosing a Second

By PETER BAKER January 31, 2017


A vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, second from left, would allow President Trump to further influence the balance of the court. Credit Luke Sharrett for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — For the White House, President Trump’s first nomination to the Supreme Court is partly about getting the chance to make a second.

In tapping Judge Neil M. Gorsuch for an open seat, Mr. Trump chose a candidate with the potential to reassure Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the swing vote who holds the balance of power on the court, that it would be safe to retire.

The idea is to show Justice Kennedy, 80, that should he step down at some point, Mr. Trump would select as his replacement a nominee similar to Judge Gorsuch, and not one so inflammatory or outside the mainstream as to be unacceptable to Justice Kennedy. Although certainly more conservative than the justice, Judge Gorsuch once clerked for him and has his enduring respect.

Whether that White House strategy would work remains unclear. Several former clerks to Justice Kennedy said on Tuesday that they doubted it would be the decisive factor for him. But it is clear that Justice Kennedy’s status over the next four years holds enormous consequences for the future of the court. While he has shown signs of thinking about retirement, he also cares deeply about the legacy he will leave behind.

The White House is not the only player engaged in the long game with this nomination. Senate Democrats now must decide how far they are willing to go in opposing Judge Gorsuch, particularly after Senate Republicans refused to even give a hearing to President Barack Obama’s last Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland.

Since Judge Gorsuch will be replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative anchor on the court who died last February, his confirmation presumably would not alter the ideological division. But Democrats signaled on Tuesday night that they would filibuster him rather than save that option for the next, presumably more significant nomination, as some liberals had quietly urged.

“Everyone involved in the process — the president, the Senate Republicans, the Senate Democrats — needs to fight this nomination with one eye on Justice Kennedy,” said Ron Klain, a former senior White House aide who shepherded court appointees for Mr. Obama and President Bill Clinton. “His decision to retire or remain determines the balance of power on the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Trump’s strategists understand that filling Justice Scalia’s seat is not as significant as replacing Justice Kennedy. “I’m sure they would dearly love to see him step down soon,” said Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general. “But he would like to be replaced by a moderate. If they chose a firebrand for the Scalia seat, Justice Kennedy might be more reluctant to leave. Of course, there is no guarantee the next nominee will be like this one.”

White House officials, naturally, did not voice that goal publicly. But as he left the announcement on Tuesday night, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, said he believed that Judge Gorsuch’s nomination would reassure Justice Kennedy that the future of the court was in good hands.

“I think Justice Kennedy will really enjoy serving with him, because he knows him well,” Mr. Hatch said, adding, “He might feel like it’s time to retire, too, because he’s talked about that a few times.”

Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988 after two choices were rejected or withdrew, Justice Kennedy has emerged as the pivotal voice on many critical issues over the past three decades. While voting with the conservative wing on economic issues like Mr. Obama’s health care program, he has sided with the liberals on social issues like abortion and gay rights.

He wrote the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage across the nation — a case that he and other legal scholars believe will mark his place in the history books. Some refer to the current bench as the Kennedy court because of his influence, which is all the more reason that conservatives have been eager to replace him.
Justice Kennedy has been silent about his plans, but it was widely noticed by his fellow justices and other court watchers last fall that he had not hired a full complement of clerks for the next term. Some thought he was slowing down when he did not teach last summer in Salzburg, Austria, as he has for many years. Another sign was his decision to schedule his reunion of clerks, normally held every five years, one year early.

But after Mr. Trump’s election, Justice Kennedy moved ahead with hiring clerks and authorized the court spokeswoman to issue a statement meant to dispute speculation that he might retire. The statement said that he had not gone to Salzburg because of conflicting family plans but would return there in 2017, and that the clerks had wanted to hold the reunion early to celebrate his 80th birthday.

Although Judge Gorsuch is closer to Justice Scalia in terms of judicial philosophy, Justice Kennedy admires his intelligence and temperament, former clerks said, enough that he flew to Denver to preside over his swearing-in after President George W. Bush appointed him to the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.


President Trump announced Judge Neil M. Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the East Room of the White House. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Judge Gorsuch returns the affection. At Tuesday night’s White House ceremony, he noted that he had clerked for both Justice Kennedy and Justice Byron White. “Justice Kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious, and like Justice White he taught me so much,” he said. “I am forever grateful.”

Read the remainder of the article at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us...

Discussion Topics:

a) If you believe that President Trump's strategy was to reassure Justice Kennedy, do you think that it will be successful and Justice Kennedy will choose to retire this year?

b) Do you agree that over the last three decades that Associate Justice Kennedy has played a pivotal role in a lot of landmark decisions that have been heard before the United States Supreme Court?

Source: The New York Times


message 8: by Lorna, Assisting Moderator (T) - SCOTUS - Civil Rights (new)

Lorna | 1864 comments Mod
How Gorsuch the Clerk Met Kennedy the Justice: A Tale of Luck

By ADAM LIPTAK and NICHOLAS FANDOS March 3, 2017


Neil M. Gorsuch, left, outside the Supreme Court with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, center, and his 1993-94 law clerks: from left, Nathan Forrester, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Miles Ehrlich and Gary Feinerman.

WASHINGTON — It was a stroke of luck that landed Neil M. Gorsuch in the chambers of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on a summer day nearly a quarter-century ago.

Then 25 and fresh off a year at Oxford, Judge Gorsuch had been hired by Justice Byron R. White for the most coveted apprenticeship in American law — a Supreme Court clerkship. But because Justice White had retired, Judge Gorsuch was also assigned, by happenstance, to Justice Kennedy, the longtime center of power at the Supreme Court.

His year as a clerk, beginning in the summer of 1993, gave Judge Gorsuch a privileged look at the court’s workings and a crash course in its unrelenting caseload and internal politics. As Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and a fellow law clerk to Justice Kennedy that year, observed, “We were in the middle of everything.”

It also produced something else: a lasting bond between an ambitious, already staunchly conservative clerk and a justice, three decades his senior, whose style and temperament appear to have rubbed off on him, even if the justice’s more moderate views did not.

Almost 25 years later, as Judge Gorsuch, now 49, awaits his own confirmation to the court, his relationship with Justice Kennedy has become a matter of intense interest, as both Democrats and Republicans look for evidence of how it might shape the court’s near future.

The White House hopes the bond matters to Justice Kennedy, too. In choosing Judge Gorsuch to replace Justice Antonin Scalia and floating the names of other former Kennedy clerks for the next Supreme Court vacancy, administration officials have sought to reassure Justice Kennedy, 80, that the court will be in good hands should he choose to retire and open a seat for another, younger justice.

While Judge Gorsuch learned a great deal in Justice Kennedy’s chambers, the lessons seem to have been more personal than political.

“There were a lot of ideologues both left and right, and he wasn’t one of them,” said Stephen F. Smith, who served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas that same term and is now a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. “He was careful, quiet.”

Judge Gorsuch’s critics say his own mild and courteous manner masks a fierce commitment to a right-wing agenda, and political scientists say he is likely to vote with the court’s most conservative justices rather than with Justice Kennedy. In closely divided cases, Justice Kennedy often holds the crucial vote, and he generally leans right. He wrote the majority opinion, for instance, in the Citizens United campaign finance case.

But in recent years, Justice Kennedy has joined the court’s four-member liberal wing in major cases establishing a right to same-sex marriage, protecting abortion rights and upholding affirmative action.

“It’s safe to say that little of Justice Kennedy rubbed off on him when it comes to certain critical areas of the law,” Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal group, said of Judge Gorsuch.

On the federal appeals court in Denver for more than a decade, Judge Gorsuch has cited Justice Kennedy by name from time to time. But he has been much more likely to cite Justice Scalia.

To his fellow law clerks, Judge Gorsuch was neither particularly dogmatic nor calculating. Instead, interviews with more than a dozen clerks and a review of papers housed at the Library of Congress paint a picture of someone with a dogged work ethic, an understated but appealing presence and a sense of fairness tempered by cautious judgment.

Justice Kennedy taught his law clerks by example, Judge Kavanaugh said, instilling in them an independent frame of mind and a “gentlemanly tone.”

“A lot of us have tried to emulate that in our careers,” Judge Kavanaugh said. “Neil has exemplified that better than anybody.”


Judge Neil M. Gorsuch making the rounds on Capitol Hill on Monday. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

Judge Gorsuch arrived at the court in the summer of 1993 in the aftermath of a bruising term. The fallout of a divisive abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, had left the justices eager to produce a quieter one in its wake.

Judge Gorsuch’s term at the court was not without notable decisions; the court issued significant rulings on discrimination in jury selection, protests outside abortion clinics, voting rights, religious schools and copyright infringement for song parodies. But none qualified as a blockbuster.

Though he worked in the chambers of Justice Kennedy as a “step clerk,” as well as for Justice White (retired justices remain entitled to a clerk), idiosyncratic hiring practices may have helped him.

“Look, there are a hundred people a year that could do the job adequately,” Justice White once said, according his biographer, Dennis J. Hutchinson. “I might as well have someone who’s interesting, and that doesn’t mean the ones the fancy law professors recommend.”

That Justice White was partial to candidates from his home state, Colorado, and who had spent time at Oxford, where the justice had been a Rhodes Scholar, most likely helped Judge Gorsuch’s application stand out, said two law clerks who worked for Justice White, David D. Meyer and John C. P. Goldberg.

“Justice White probably would have seen echoes of himself in a way in Neil,” said Mr. Meyer, who is now the dean of Tulane University Law School.

Read the remainder of the article at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/us...

Other:
Kennedy Justice by Victor S. Navasky by Victor S. Navasky Victor S. Navasky

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Marriage Equality, Gift Edition As Delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy by Anthony M. Kennedy by Anthony M. Kennedy Anthony M. Kennedy

Source: The New York Times


message 9: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44168 comments Mod
Thank you Lorna


message 10: by Lorna, Assisting Moderator (T) - SCOTUS - Civil Rights (new)

Lorna | 1864 comments Mod
The Anthony Kennedy watch returns: Will he stay or will he go?

By ARIANE DE VOGUE April 2, 2018

Washington (CNN) - Last year, Justice Anthony Kennedy traveled to the White House, robes and all, and found himself in a familiar spot: the center of attention.



The assembled audience was there for the swearing in of Justice Neil Gorsuch, but many eyes were trained on Kennedy, who like no other justice in recent history controls the outcome of the highest profile cases before the court.

Kennedy's role that day was to deliver the oath to his former clerk, but some of the judicial conservatives assembled in the Rose Garden were wondering if Kennedy might soon provide them with the opportunity to return to their vetting binders. Would he retire and give President Donald Trump a second vacancy and the chance to cement a conservative majority on the court for decades to come?

A few weeks later, even the President got pulled in to the guessing game: "I've heard the same rumors that a lot of people have heard," he said from the oval office, according to the Washington Times.

In the end, Kennedy made no announcement. After almost 30 years on the highest court in the land, he determined he wasn't quite finished.

Now, as retirement speculation ramps up again, court watchers wonder what went into his calculation for staying on the bench last term -- and if anything's changed since then.

Significant cases facing the court could have served as the siren call, or maybe Kennedy felt the weight -- and pull -- that one of his colleagues called the "awesome responsibility" of holding the critical vote for the biggest cases. It's conceivable he was spooked by the volatile first few months of the Trump administration, or perhaps retirement is easier to contemplate than to execute.

Whatever motivated Kennedy to stay, conservatives waiting for a chance to push the court to the right were disappointed. And liberals, even though they have been on the losing end of Kennedy votes on issues such as campaign finance and the Second Amendment, now cling to him. He has, after all, given them victories in LGBT rights, abortion access, affirmative action and his replacement under the Trump administration would surely be much younger and more conservative.

There is no underestimating his impact. Kennedy was in the majority for 97% of all cases during the 2016-17 Supreme Court term, according to statistics compiled by Scotusblog. In cases where judges were divided, Kennedy was in the majority 93% of the time, by far the highest percentage of the nine justices.

Partisan gerrymandering

The speculation about Kennedy's future comes as the justices are considering an unusual number of extraordinarily consequential cases where his vote and input will be critical.

For example, partisan gerrymandering is front and center. The Supreme Court has never been able to articulate a test concerning the overreliance on politics in map drawing.

Back in 2004, the court rejected a challenge to a political gerrymander in Pennsylvania. While four justices believed that courts should never hear such cases, Kennedy held the door open in a separate opinion.

Kennedy acknowledged that ordering a correction of all election district lines for partisan reasons might amount to an "unprecedented intervention in the American political process," but he would not foreclose the possibility of judicial relief down road. He said that in the future a "limited and precise rationale" might emerge.

That day may or may not have come this term as the court is hearing not one, but two cases concerning the issue.

At oral arguments during one of the cases concerning Wisconsin last October, Kennedy did seem open at one point to the possibility that a standard grounded in the First Amendment could be found.

In late March, the court heard a second challenge regarding a map in Maryland. It was clear during oral arguments that the justices were still struggling with the issue.

At one point Justice Stephen Breyer even suggested that the court take the two cases and another one pending out of North Carolina and hold rearguments next term.

"Some of us saw this as a plea to get Justice Kennedy to stay on the court to see this to the end," Rick Hasen a professor at University of California-Irvine, opined.

A workable framework could be a landmark opinion that could revolutionize how states draw their lines.

"If Justice Kennedy agrees with plaintiffs in either of these cases, then he'll be known for decades as the justice who succeeded in rooting out the worst abuses in partisan gerrymandering," said Josh Douglas, a professor University of Kentucky College of Law. "Making his mark on this issue could be one of the reasons he hasn't retired yet."

Read the remainder of article at: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/01/politi...

Other:

Justice Anthony Kennedy Decisions by Robert Dittmer by Robert Dittmer (no photo)

Source: CNN


message 11: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44168 comments Mod
Well we know the answer now!


message 12: by Lorna, Assisting Moderator (T) - SCOTUS - Civil Rights (new)

Lorna | 1864 comments Mod
Bentley wrote: "Well we know the answer now!"

Yes, sadly so.


message 13: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44168 comments Mod
Time will tell - not terribly impressed with the latest alleged revelation on Kavanaugh which may or may not be true - but the timing stinks no matter how you judge the alleged circumstances, I really think that if the person wants to make the allegation that they can still protect their privacy but come forward and speak to the authorities - these veiled anonymous accusations sink ships and careers, And Kavanaugh will always have a ? about his suitability due to something like this which may not be true,!


message 14: by Lorna, Assisting Moderator (T) - SCOTUS - Civil Rights (new)

Lorna | 1864 comments Mod
Bentley, I agree that this is a mess right now. All the attention is now focused on that when there are thousands of documents that have yet to be produced which may be important insights as to issues that will be coming before the Court.


message 15: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44168 comments Mod
I know the most important reasons are being withheld from the public - it is such a travesty


message 16: by Lorna, Assisting Moderator (T) - SCOTUS - Civil Rights (new)

Lorna | 1864 comments Mod
Justice Anthony Kennedy in retirement: A different life

By LYLE DENNISTON July 30, 2018

Tuesday, by his choice, is the last day of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s 30-year career on the Supreme Court. If retirement means having time to relish the successes of a working life, Kennedy will have much to remember.



The Justice leaves the bench after years of holding the single most influential vote, at least when the Court has split deeply – as it has often done on major cases.

His vote and his opinions created a revolution for gay rights, helped save Roe v. Wade, enhanced free expression, found new rights for children in trouble with the law, questioned the harshness of prison life, kept the Court most of the time from going to extremes, and – to the dismay of his conservative critics—kept the Constitution regularly up to date.

Only one other Justice among the nine Kennedy colleagues who left the bench ahead of him did so with a similar record of casting the decisive fifth vote. The other was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the previous “swing” Justice, who retired more than 12 years ago.

But if retiring means having to adjust to change, that always is profound for any Justice who voluntarily steps down. Whatever activity the retired Justice chooses, it will no longer be as one of a very elite nine people, occupying seats of enormous power as the final interpreter of what the Constitution means – unless the Constitution is amended to create a new meaning.

Kennedy, like some other retired Justices, has said he will now do some judging on lower federal courts. In doing so, he will be only one among hundreds – there are about 180 judges on the federal appeals courts, where Kennedy is likely to take temporary seats. And, like all of his new colleagues, Kennedy will no longer be assured of making decisions that are the last word.

By the Constitution’s design, there is only one Supreme Court, and all of those below it that have been created by Congress are known as “inferior” courts, although that never was meant as an insult; it is simply that anything a judge at that level does is potentially subject to being second-guessed at a higher level, by the nine Justices.

As the late Justice Robert H. Jackson wryly put it, the Supreme Court is “not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final.”

Once retired, a Justice cannot return to that bench, even to help out if the Court finds itself short-handed. The Court can function with eight Justices but is uncomfortable doing so.

Federal law permits a retired Justice to continue service in the lower federal judiciary, and most retired Justices do that on an appeals court rather than the federal trial courts, known as district courts. Retired Justices do not become regular members of an appeals court; they go on temporary assignments, made by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., as part of his duties as the head of the federal court system.

Federal appeals courts usually work in panels of three and focus on the legal issues in appealed cases, and each case requires at most only a fairly brief hearing with no need to assemble factual evidence, as single trial judges do in the district courts where trials can run on for weeks if not longer.

In retirement, Kennedy by law gets to keep his annual salary, $255,300. (In that sense, he will out-rank his new appellate colleagues, who currently are paid $215,400.) His continuing to do some judicial or court-related duties is a condition set by federal law for retaining his full salary, as long as he is healthy enough to continue.

One of his former colleagues, retired Justice David H. Souter, has helped decide hundreds of cases on federal appeals courts since he retired nine years ago. A number of those cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court with mixed results, according to a survey by the online legal news service, Scotusblog.

Read the remainder of the article: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/j...

Other:

The Tie Goes to Freedom Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Liberty by Helen J. Knowles by Helen J. Knowles (no photo)

Source: Constitution Daily


message 17: by Lorna, Assisting Moderator (T) - SCOTUS - Civil Rights (new)

Lorna | 1864 comments Mod
Justice Anthony Kennedy in retirement: A different life

By LYLE DENNISTON July 30, 2018

Tuesday, by his choice, is the last day of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s 30-year career on the Supreme Court. If retirement means having time to relish the successes of a working life, Kennedy will have much to remember.



The Justice leaves the bench after years of holding the single most influential vote, at least when the Court has split deeply – as it has often done on major cases.

His vote and his opinions created a revolution for gay rights, helped save Roe v. Wade, enhanced free expression, found new rights for children in trouble with the law, questioned the harshness of prison life, kept the Court most of the time from going to extremes, and – to the dismay of his conservative critics -- kept the Constitution regularly up to date.

Only one other Justice among the nine Kennedy colleagues who left the bench ahead of him did so with a similar record of casting the decisive fifth vote. The other was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the previous “swing” Justice, who retired more than 12 years ago.

But if retiring means having to adjust to change, that always is profound for any Justice who voluntarily steps down. Whatever activity the retired Justice chooses, it will no longer be as one of a very elite nine people, occupying seats of enormous power as the final interpreter of what the Constitution means – unless the Constitution is amended to create a new meaning.

Kennedy, like some other retired Justices, has said he will now do some judging on lower federal courts. In doing so, he will be only one among hundreds – there are about 180 judges on the federal appeals courts, where Kennedy is likely to take temporary seats. And, like all of his new colleagues, Kennedy will no longer be assured of making decisions that are the last word.

By the Constitution’s design, there is only one Supreme Court, and all of those below it that have been created by Congress are known as “inferior” courts, although that never was meant as an insult; it is simply that anything a judge at that level does is potentially subject to being second-guessed at a higher level, by the nine Justices.

As the late Justice Robert H. Jackson wryly put it, the Supreme Court is “not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final.”

Once retired, a Justice cannot return to that bench, even to help out if the Court finds itself short-handed. The Court can function with eight Justices but is uncomfortable doing so.

Federal law permits a retired Justice to continue service in the lower federal judiciary, and most retired Justices do that on an appeals court rather than the federal trial courts, known as district courts. Retired Justices do not become regular members of an appeals court; they go on temporary assignments, made by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., as part of his duties as the head of the federal court system.

Federal appeals courts usually work in panels of three and focus on the legal issues in appealed cases, and each case requires at most only a fairly brief hearing with no need to assemble factual evidence, as single trial judges do in the district courts where trials can run on for weeks if not longer.

In retirement, Kennedy by law gets to keep his annual salary, $255,300. (In that sense, he will out-rank his new appellate colleagues, who currently are paid $215,400.) His continuing to do some judicial or court-related duties is a condition set by federal law for retaining his full salary, as long as he is healthy enough to continue.

One of his former colleagues, retired Justice David H. Souter, has helped decide hundreds of cases on federal appeals courts since he retired nine years ago. A number of those cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court with mixed results, according to a survey by the online legal news service, Scotusblog.

Retired Justice O’Connor also spent some time on appeals court panels but apparently is no longer doing so. However, she has been active in off-the-bench judicial activities, including efforts to increase public understanding – especially among children -- of the Constitution and in working to end elections of state judges as a reform project.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who left the bench eight years ago, has opted to use his time not on the bench but as a writer and public speaker on legal topics. He has written two books about his judicial experience and about ways in which he believes the Constitution should be amended. In March, he wrote a newspaper opinion column promoting his idea that the Second Amendment protection of gun rights should be repealed as a means of gun control.

Link to remainder of article: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/j...

More:

Anthony Kennedy and the 2017-18 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court by Kevin T. McGuire by Kevin T. McGuire (no photo)

Source: Constitution Daily


back to top