ReportWire

Tag: Anthony Kennedy

  • Supreme Court takes aim at gay marriage ruling. Good | Opinion

    [ad_1]

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    Getty Images file photo

    You might have missed the news blip this week that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to its 2015 gay marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision of an overwhelmingly conservative court next year could very well be one of the year’s biggest stories, dividing Americans like nothing since the Trump court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    I’ve been a backer of gay marriage since the 1990s, when Andrew Sullivan made the case that marriage would push gay life more into the traditionalist mold of heterosexual life shaped by the responsibilities of the modern marriage covenant. The committed love of an older lesbian colleague and a gay teacher had something to do with my thinking, as well.

    The best thing about Obergefell is that in the decade since it legalized gay marriage in all 50 states, all the religious right’s scary arguments about the moral and social breakdown married gays would unleash upon society have been shown to be bunk. The worst thing I’ve seen is that the LGBTQ community is just as bad at marriage as the rest of us. I’m no paragon. Just ask my wives.

    But even then, I am all for the Supreme Court overturning the decision that was Anthony Kennedy’s last big foray into philosophizing. His ruling, joined by the court’s liberals, is farrago of falsehoods and flapdoodle with a complete disregard for the Constitution, which much to the annoyance of the left simply doesn’t have anything to say about the debate at hand other than to require that we resolve things as a democratic republic should — by voting.

    One way you can tell whether your spouse in a marital argument or your swing-vote Supreme Court justice has gone off the rails is when they start using words like “all” and “always.” Kennedy takes all the way to the second sentence of the decision to get sideways with reality: “The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.”

    “Always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons,” huh? Guess he’s never heard of marriages that can be undone with a brief incantation and the wife cast aside. Guess he’s never heard of the places where wife beating and marital rape were standard. That’s a lot of nobility, right there.

    The next paragraph gets even better. “Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. This wisdom …”

    Confucius had a lot of wisdom about how marriage should be conducted. Wife chattel? Check. Wife can’t own property? Check. Wife to obey husband in all things? Check. Corporal punishment for bad wives? Check.

    That’s some wisdom from Confucius about the “dignity” of wives. Let me go out on a limb to say if your opinion on gay marriage starts off by citing Confucian wisdom, you might be a little confused about history.

    Scalia: Let public debate continue

    Kennedy is no less confused about his job interpreting the Constitution. He opines that his “method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.”

    But the thing about Constitution is that the whole point is for the past to rule the present, unless legislators take up the arduous task of amending it. The First Amendment from the distant past gives us the right to free speech. The past absolutely rules that you cannot throw irritating columnists in jail for what they write, no matter how much you want to, without changing the Constitution.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, who knew what his job was, had it exactly right when he wrote in dissent, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision — such as ‘due process of law’ or ‘equal protection of the laws’ — it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice. … Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.”

    In short, the men who reshaped our country’s Constitution in the wake of the Civil War did not accidentally legalize gay marriage, no matter how much Justice Kennedy might twist logic and history to make it seem so.

    I want gay marriage to be legal. I will vote 100 times to make it so if that is what it takes. But just because I like the outcome of a Supreme Court case does not make it good law. The Supreme Court should strike this monstrosity down, and Congress should go about making it law the right way.

    David Mastio is a national columnist for McClatchy and The Kansas City Star.

    Related Stories from Raleigh News & Observer

    David Mastio, a former deputy editorial page editor for the liberal USA TODAY and the conservative Washington Times, has worked in opinion journalism as a commentary editor, editorial writer and columnist for 30 years. He was also a speechwriter for the George W. Bush administration.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    [ad_2]

    David Mastio

    Source link

  • Supreme Court takes aim at gay marriage ruling. Good | Opinion

    [ad_1]

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    Getty Images file photo

    You might have missed the news blip this week that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to its 2015 gay marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision of an overwhelmingly conservative court next year could very well be one of the year’s biggest stories, dividing Americans like nothing since the Trump court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    I’ve been a backer of gay marriage since the 1990s, when Andrew Sullivan made the case that marriage would push gay life more into the traditionalist mold of heterosexual life shaped by the responsibilities of the modern marriage covenant. The committed love of an older lesbian colleague and a gay teacher had something to do with my thinking, as well.

    The best thing about Obergefell is that in the decade since it legalized gay marriage in all 50 states, all the religious right’s scary arguments about the moral and social breakdown married gays would unleash upon society have been shown to be bunk. The worst thing I’ve seen is that the LGBTQ community is just as bad at marriage as the rest of us. I’m no paragon. Just ask my wives.

    But even then, I am all for the Supreme Court overturning the decision that was Anthony Kennedy’s last big foray into philosophizing. His ruling, joined by the court’s liberals, is farrago of falsehoods and flapdoodle with a complete disregard for the Constitution, which much to the annoyance of the left simply doesn’t have anything to say about the debate at hand other than to require that we resolve things as a democratic republic should — by voting.

    One way you can tell whether your spouse in a marital argument or your swing-vote Supreme Court justice has gone off the rails is when they start using words like “all” and “always.” Kennedy takes all the way to the second sentence of the decision to get sideways with reality: “The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.”

    “Always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons,” huh? Guess he’s never heard of marriages that can be undone with a brief incantation and the wife cast aside. Guess he’s never heard of the places where wife beating and marital rape were standard. That’s a lot of nobility, right there.

    The next paragraph gets even better. “Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. This wisdom …”

    Confucius had a lot of wisdom about how marriage should be conducted. Wife chattel? Check. Wife can’t own property? Check. Wife to obey husband in all things? Check. Corporal punishment for bad wives? Check.

    That’s some wisdom from Confucius about the “dignity” of wives. Let me go out on a limb to say if your opinion on gay marriage starts off by citing Confucian wisdom, you might be a little confused about history.

    Scalia: Let public debate continue

    Kennedy is no less confused about his job interpreting the Constitution. He opines that his “method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.”

    But the thing about Constitution is that the whole point is for the past to rule the present, unless legislators take up the arduous task of amending it. The First Amendment from the distant past gives us the right to free speech. The past absolutely rules that you cannot throw irritating columnists in jail for what they write, no matter how much you want to, without changing the Constitution.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, who knew what his job was, had it exactly right when he wrote in dissent, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision — such as ‘due process of law’ or ‘equal protection of the laws’ — it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice. … Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.”

    In short, the men who reshaped our country’s Constitution in the wake of the Civil War did not accidentally legalize gay marriage, no matter how much Justice Kennedy might twist logic and history to make it seem so.

    I want gay marriage to be legal. I will vote 100 times to make it so if that is what it takes. But just because I like the outcome of a Supreme Court case does not make it good law. The Supreme Court should strike this monstrosity down, and Congress should go about making it law the right way.

    David Mastio is a national columnist for McClatchy and The Kansas City Star.

    Related Stories from Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    David Mastio, a former deputy editorial page editor for the liberal USA TODAY and the conservative Washington Times, has worked in opinion journalism as a commentary editor, editorial writer and columnist for 30 years. He was also a speechwriter for the George W. Bush administration.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    [ad_2]

    David Mastio

    Source link

  • Book excerpt:

    [ad_1]

    Simon & Schuster


    We may receive an affiliate commission from anything you buy from this article.

    In his new memoir, “Life, Law & Liberty” (to be published Tuesday by Simon & Schuster), former Justice Anthony Kennedy writes about his life’s journey to becoming a lawyer, a judge, and the deciding vote on some of the Supreme Court’s most consequential decisions.

    Read an excerpt below, and don’t miss Erin Moriarty’s interview with Kennedy on “CBS Sunday Morning” October 12!


    “Life, Law & Liberty” by Anthony Kennedy

    Prefer to listen? Audible has a 30-day free trial available right now.


    Prologue

    Sacramento is where my thinking began about equality, liberty, and freedom. My wife, Mary, was also born and raised in Sacramento. We share cherished memories of younger years, school days, our wedding in 1963, and raising our three children in the city we loved. Sacramento is the place where we stood, in both the real and symbolic sense, to find beginnings and discover perspectives beyond. It is where my father practiced law, and where I — far too soon — stepped into his place to take over his practice. It is where my time on the bench began, and where so many of my beliefs about our country, about the rule of law, and about the world were formed.

    The West, of course, was imperfect, and is imperfect. Neither the place nor the concept was anything close to idyllic. There were and are scorpions and snakes aplenty. On the frontier, just as in other places, racial, ideological, and gender prejudice were all too common and injurious. But perhaps more than elsewhere, the frontier contained the promise of something better, the promise of community, of tolerance, of growth and ambition, all tempered by the realms in which the reality fell short, many of which are discussed in the pages ahead. But it is in the West where I learned to see people as individuals, beyond their race or religion or gender, beyond whom they loved or how they chose to live their lives, beyond the elements that could have driven us apart. I began to try to understand the common beliefs that brought us together.

    Only 116 men and women in our nation’s history have served as justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Growing up, it was easy to think of these justices as beyond reproach. And the inequity that they were all white men at the time was slow to dawn upon me. But my image was of nine sages behind closed doors, ruling on some of the most central, and potentially divisive, issues in society. And then, one day, after years spent practicing law, teaching, and then judging on the Ninth Circuit bench, suddenly one of the nine was me.

    Reality set in: I hoped to still be the person I had always been. A husband, a father, a diligent reader. But still just a fallible person. For all my years on the bench — and it gives me pride to say that my service as a justice on the Court was the fifteenth longest in U.S. history — I took the responsibility seriously, as did each of my colleagues, no matter how much and how often we agreed or disagreed. In doing my best to interpret and apply the Constitution and the law to the cases that came before us, my hope was that my life in the West would help give me the perspective needed to be honest and fair.

    Growing up in the West taught me, for example, that the creative energies of a great people cannot be realized unless the realms of economic freedom and personal liberty are respected. It reminded me that central to an individual’s claim to personal liberty is the right to fair treatment and to be protected from arbitrary government action. The West reminded me that the most successful businessperson and the lowest-paid worker are each entitled to this basic dignity, a dignity that helped Americans build the frontier and continues to help us today.

    The West is so central to my self-understanding that it seems an appropriate place to begin. This Western boy did later go East. But my hope was to stay always close to those Western ideas of liberty and justice. This memoir is my way of putting those ideas on paper, of explaining how a Western boy became a lawyer, a judge, and a justice, seeking always to honor our country’s founding principles and to do so with civility, hard work, tolerance, and the ethical foundation our nation must preserve.

          
    Excerpt from “Life, Law & Liberty” by Anthony Kennedy. Copyright © 2025 by Anthony Kennedy. Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster, N.Y.


    Get the book here:

    “Life, Law & Liberty” by Anthony Kennedy

    Buy locally from Bookshop.org


    For more info:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court today:

    [ad_1]

    Former Justice Anthony Kennedy loves to show guests around his art-filled chambers, but beneath that gentlemanly charm is the steel that once made him a force on the Supreme Court. He showed a visitor a statue of the Pony Express: “And when Ronald Reagan was Governor, and he saw it and loved it, I said, ‘You’re not Queen Mary. I don’t have to give it to you!’”

    Kennedy, now 89 years old, no longer hears Supreme Court cases. He formally stepped down seven years ago during the first Trump administration. “I loved sitting on the bench,” he said.

    Asked whether he would want to be there today, he replied, “The only reason I left – I love the Court – but I left for something that I love more, which is my wife, Mary.”

    Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. 

    CBS News


    Kennedy now has time for his wife and family – and time to look back. In a new memoir, “Life, Law & Liberty” (to be published Tuesday by Simon & Schuster), Kennedy details how growing up in the West shaped his remarkable legal career, from private practice and teaching law in Sacramento, to sitting on the highest court in the country.

    “I was born in the West and embraced that Western spirit,” he writes. “Sacramento is where my thinking began about equality, liberty and freedom.”

    Asked if he ever imagined himself sitting on the Supreme Court, Kennedy replied, “No, or on any court in fact. My father was a solo practitioner, and I took over his solo practice. Actually it took over me. And I had no time to see the kids growing up.”

    So when then-Governor Ronald Reagan asked Kennedy if he would be interested in a federal judgeship, he said yes. “President Ford had asked him who his recommendation would be, and it seemed to me a good way to be able to spend more time with my family,” he said.

    life-law-and-liberty-cover-simon-and-schuster-900.jpg

    Simon & Schuster


    At just 38 years of age, Kennedy became the youngest judge on the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, but soon discovered that sitting on the bench had its own challenges. Just months after Kennedy was sworn in, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme was charged with the attempted assassination of President Gerald Ford. Judge Kennedy presided over her bail hearing. “Because I was the circuit judge and happened to be in Sacramento that day or that week,” he said. On the question of whether Fromme should be allowed bail, Kennedy said, “It took me probably ten seconds to decide no.”

    But just days later, Kennedy says his home in Sacramento was broken into and vandalized. And though he couldn’t prove it, he always suspected there was a link. “It was terrifying,” he said. “Fortunately our U.S. marshals are very good, and nothing happened.”

    More than a decade later, Reagan – now president – reached out again, this time with a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Reagan’s first pick, Robert Bork, had been rejected by the Senate, and his second, Douglas Ginsburg, had dropped out. Kennedy, the third choice, said yes, and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

    Professor Jamal Greene, who teaches constitutional law at Columbia University, said, “I think you could make an argument for saying that Justice Kennedy, in his time, was the most influential justice, maybe even in the history of the Court.”

    Greene got to know Kennedy in 2006 while clerking for another justice on the Court, John Paul Stevens. “He definitely was a bit of an iconoclast in the sense that he sometimes went with the conservatives, but very often went with the liberal bloc as well,” Greene said.

    And as the “swing justice” on the Court, says Greene, Kennedy cast the deciding vote on some of the most consequential political and cultural issues of his era: the 2000 Presidential election, gun ownership, abortion rights, and same-sex marriage.

    Greene said, “One way of measuring that is, the year I was on the Court, there were 25 5-4 decisions, and Justice Kennedy was in the majority in every single one. And there’s certainly no one else who came close to that.”

    Kennedy did not take his power lightly. A devout Catholic, he considered resigning from the Court in 1992 while deciding Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but ultimately joined with liberal justices to uphold a woman’s right to an abortion.

    He said, “It just seemed to me that this was the woman’s right, and that what people of my belief should do is to convince her not to have the abortion, to convince her … but that she should have the right.”

    Kennedy also wrote the decision in 2015 that recognized same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges: “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.”

    Kennedy said, “Someone told me it passed the refrigerator test, [which means] if there’s something that’s interesting and well-written, you put it on your refrigerator.”

    All of Kennedy’s opinions, says Greene, reflect a common theme: “If you saw a Supreme Court opinion and saw the words ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ in the first paragraph, you could be pretty sure that Justice Kennedy was the person who had written that,” he said.

    But since Kennedy stepped down, Greene says, his legacy has begun to fade. In 2022, the Supreme Court (including two of his former clerks, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh) reversed Roe v. Wade, ending the federal right to abortion. In his opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the decision behind Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong,” and that the opinion Kennedy wrote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey “perpetuated its errors.”

    To which Kennedy says, “I stand by what we wrote and what we decided. It’s a difficult issue.”

    He also noted it is quite infrequent for the Court to overrule one of its own decisions.

    It may not be the last Kennedy opinion that’s reversed. A petition has already been filed asking the Court to reconsider the case that legalized same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges.

    Today, Kennedy spends a lot of time with his own “nine” – his grandchildren – and while he is careful not to criticize the current justices, he admits he worries that some members of the Court may be too public with their differences: “I’m actually somewhat concerned about the Court,” he said. “It’s a little bit too personal and confrontational, some of the opinions. I’m hoping that will settle down a little bit.”

    I asked, “You do write a lot about how important civility is, and ethics. Do you think we’ve lost sight of that today? Is that another reason why you wrote this book?”

    “Yes, I’m concerned,” he replied. “Democracy presumes an open, rational, thoughtful, decent discussion where you respect the dignity of the person with whom you disagree. And if it doesn’t have that, then democracy as we know it is in danger.”

         
    READ AN EXCERPT: “Life, Law & Liberty” by Justice Anthony Kennedy

         
    For more info:

         
    Story produced by Mary Raffalli. Editor: Remington Korper. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link