Supreme Court & Justice Kennedy

A Supreme Court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the swing vote on many of the Court's 5–4 decisions. 5.0/5

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Justice Scalia Justice Breyer Justice Ginsburg Mitt Romney Barack Obama Pancreatic Cancer Eric Holder Supreme Court Justice Chief Justice Roberts Justice Anthony Kennedy United States Andrew Mccarthy Joe Biden Paul Ryan Barack Hussien Obama

–Justice Kennedy will take centre stage during the Supreme Court’s…
Justice Kennedy will continue serving the Supreme Court for at least one more year
ANOTHER NOMINATION? Speculation grows that Justice Kennedy may retire
If gets one more Scalia-type Supreme Court Justice his presidency will be a success.
Supreme Court: Will Justice Kennedy retire this month? & Ginsburg needs to retire! Should be age limit!
Supreme Court: Will Justice Kennedy retire this month? via the App
I liked a video Justice Kennedy will Announce retirement from Supreme Court as Early as This
Justice Kennedy may announce his resignation from the Supreme Court on Monday, allowing President Trump to nominate a ne…
(NOT GOOD!) Retirement rumors ramp up for influential Supreme Court Justice: via
As one justice settles into his new job at the Supreme Court, is another about to leave?
"The nation must continue to make strides to overcome race-based discrimination," Justice Kennedy wrote for majority
How the fight over Gorsuch could keep Justice Kennedy from leaving the Supreme Court.
Justice Kennedy and the Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
Justice Kennedy is holding up the Nazis as exemplars for the current Supreme Court. Talks about ethics public trust
If Kennedy is looking for a solitary-confinement case, an inmate has one: Whatever a Supreme Court Justice wis...
Love for the win! Yes! Supreme Court and Justice Kennedy laying it down.
It's a new day. Thank you Supreme Court. Thank you Justice Kennedy. Your opinion is profound, in more ways than you may kn…
Justice Kennedy and *** rights: (Paul Mirengoff) As I begin typing this, the Supreme Court is in t...
Supreme CoURT -- October 8, 2014 As a progressive observer of the Supreme Court and someone who has a Master's Degree in Public Administration where I concentrated on Legislative and Judicial policymaking, I have been appalled by the right-wing judicial activism that the right-wing complains about except when the rulings are in their favor. Giving personhood and religious rights to corporations are just the tip of the rotten iceberg of the Roberts court. That notwithstanding, the recent non-ruling in the same-sex marriage debate and the stay issued from Justice Kennedy indicate what is to come; namely, since the court did not have the needed 5 Justices to bring the previous cases to the full court and the erstwhile conservative majority did not hold, I predict that the court will soon take up the issue in a case that is ripe for adjudication. Kennedy's stay might well indicate that he is ready to bring the issue before the full court and settle the issue once and for all. I therefore predict that, once th ...
New York Times citing my research on Justice Kennedy - As *** Prevail in Supreme Court, Women See Setbacks
Coca Cola can be sued, per Justice Kennedy: “Don’t make me feel bad, because I thought this was pomegranate juice."
Supreme Court Smacks Down Obama’s Globalist Agenda! Dear Conservative, While the Supreme Court tends to lean Conservative, many of its most recent rulings have been split down party/ideological lines. Most contentious cases end up with a 5-4 split, with Justice Kennedy usually providing the swing vote. It isn’t very often that the Court has a unanimous ruling and it is even less likely for a Court to rule unanimously against a sitting-President’s administration. Then again, the Department of Justice is run by Eric Holder, so I guess anything is possible. Just this week, the Supreme Court ruled against Holder and Obama 9-0 in the case Bond v. United States. I have covered this case in the past, early on when it was still in the trial phase. The U.S. government charged Carol Anne Bond with violating the 1998 U.N. Chemical Weapons Treaty after she launched an amateurish plan to poison her husband’s mistress. Mrs. Bond covered door knobs with chemicals hoping to kill the woman, but when all was said a ...
CONGRESSMAN PEARCE APPLAUDS Supreme CoURT DECISION ON TOWN OF GREECE V. GALLOWAY Washington, DC (May 6, 2014) Monday, Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Town of Greece in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway. The court’s decision was the result of a 2008 suit filed by two residents in Greece, New York, who claimed that the practice of reciting an opening prayer in council meetings was unconstitutional. “The Supreme Court made the right decision," said Congressman Steve Pearce. "An opening prayer is a longstanding tradition performed in local municipalities and in the United States Congress. As Justice Kennedy states in the opinion of the court, 'Our tradition assumes that adult citizens, firm in their own beliefs, can tolerate and perhaps appreciate a ceremonial prayer delivered by a person of a different faith.' This ceremonial practice is a constitutional right for all governing bodies, no matter how small.” In August 2013, Pearce joined 84 other members of Congress who submitted an Amicus ...
In its ruling yesterday in Town of Greece v. Galloway, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of Americans to pray in the public square, including legislative prayer. The chaplain of the United States Senate opens each legislative day with a prayer, usually appealing for wisdom and clarity. I think we all agree that Washington needs more of both, and this long-standing tradition of opening in prayer traces back to America’s earliest days. I agree with Justice Kennedy, who said that the tradition of public prayer exists to unite, not divide. As a nation that cherishes the First Amendment, we must not sacrifice the Constitutional right to practice faith in the public square in the name of Political Correctness. Religious liberty is a core American principle, and efforts to constrain and restrict the exercise of religion and freedom of speech must be opposed.
THANK YOU JESUS In a narrow, 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may begin town meetings with a prayer, so long as it doesn't discriminate against non-Christians in its selection. In its decision, the high court found that a New York town's prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The highly anticipated decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway was written by Justice Kennedy, although not all of the majority agreed with the entirety of his opinion, demonstrating just how curious and divisive a case this was. As SCOTUSBlog's live coverage of the decision outlined, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito agreed with Kennedy in full; Justices Scalia and Thomas agreed with all but one section, and Alito ended up also filing a separate concurring opinion, also joined by Scalia. The dissent was even fractured: Breyer wrote his own dissent, while Justice Kagan wrote an additional dissent that all for minority justices joined. RELATED: Five Best Monday Columns In ...
John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sam the Sham Alito, Clarence Thomas and Justice Kennedy the most corrupt Supreme Court in history
Wall Street Journal Letters The Feds, the Supremes, Same-Sex Marriage and Utah It is a shame Justice Kennedy had not read, or perhaps understood, the Court's 1885 Murphy v. Ramsey decision. Jan. 26, 2014 In "Utah's Marriage Battles and the Ghost of Brigham Young" (Cross Country, Jan. 18), Seth Lipsky remarks on the irony of the Dec. 20 decision of a U.S. district judge in overturning Utah's ban on same-sex marriage, while another federal judge struck down an essential part of its ban on polygamy-this done to a state that had to outlaw polygamy to enter the union. If same-sex marriage is OK, what could be wrong with polygamy? This is taking place in the backwash of June's Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor, which found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because it defined marriage for federal purposes as one man and one woman. Justice Anthony Kennedy objected that DOMA served "no legitimate purpose" but only had the "purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those" in same-sex marriage ...
So, one Republican claims that all *** want to put all heterosexuals into prison. Pat Robertson suggests that *** clerks working for Justice Kennedy unfairly influenced him. Rand Paul claims that everyone will soon be able to marry their pets. The Pennsylvania GOP silenced an openly *** Representative today because they claimed that him talking would be "open rebellion" against "God's Law". Virginia's Attorney General has asked the Supreme Court to revive the ban on oral and anal sex. A Texas Republican claims that Wendy Davis is a "terrorist". Conservative "christians" claim that they are victims of bigotry because they can't be bigoted. And there are still people out there who doubt that the conservative GOP has completely lost its collective mind.
So yesterday the Supreme Court used Fifth Amendment reason against DOMA while it did support each states right to define marriage as one man and one woman. My concern and objection is their uniform position against those who oppose same sex marriage. Even more disturbing was Justice Kennedy's use of the word animus against those who hold to the standard of God's Word. That word attributes hatred and dislike...homophobe...to those who adhere to God's Word and I take offense to that. I will voice and write and not be silent. Mark my words, this defense will be used for other social issues and the moving from our Judeo-Christian values will continue at a more rapid pace as time is short and we are clearly in the 11th hour before Christ's return. So what should followers of Jesus do? Continue to love enough to proclaim the truth, work together and peacefully and passionately labor to maintain our rights and pray that The Lord rain down revival on the Body of Christ and that the Holy Spirit empower ...
A divided Supreme Court concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to review the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, and the line-up is an odd one. The Chief writes the majority, joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justice Kennedy dissents, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and…
From: Gary L. Bauer, American Values, 6.26.13 The Culture War Continues & How You Can Help Win It! Today the Supreme Court handed down two decisions on the meaning of marriage. Here is my analysis with an Action Item at the end. Many conservatives had feared the possibility of broad rulings from the Supreme Court today dramatically redefining the institution of marriage. In reality, the rulings were relatively narrow in scope. While we are relieved that the worst-case scenario did not happen today, it is nevertheless one more step toward the redefinition of marriage by judicial fiat. Regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy that Congress could not deny federal benefits to married same-sex couples in states where such marriages are legal. Justice Kennedy declared that the regulation of marriage was essentially a state issue and Congress had no authority to deny benefits to couples legally married. Therefore the Supreme Court dec ...
Guess what cannabis state statutes have federal standing thanks to the LGBT community, and a decent US Supreme Court decision! “The federal statute is invalid (CSA regarding cannabis), for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its [cannabis] laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this state protection and treating those persons [using cannabis] less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” [all i replaced is anti *** marriage with cannabis] a PSA of greenfaith Ministry, N.A.C., green faith ministry, Greenfaith Ministry TREE of LIFE Tabernacle, the Cannabis Revival film festival, Cannabis Revival Colorado, the Coloradans 4 Cannabis Patient Rights and Cannabis University Inc™
I'm happy about the Supreme Court decision regarding DOMA and Prop 8 but extremely disappointed in yesterday's Voting Rights Act decision. I hate how every Supreme Court decision is basically decided by Justice Kennedy. Also, DOMA and Prop 8 might have gone down but there are still plenty of states that do not have marriage equality. The fight is far from over.
Chilling. The Supreme Court decides that your silence can be used against you... A nation continues to wait for final word on the Supreme Court's Big Four cases this term — voting rights, affirmative action, DOMA, and Proposition 8 — but the justices' closest decision arrived first on Monday, in a 5-4 ruling on Salinas v. Texas in which the conservative members of the Court and Anthony Kennedy determined that if you remain silent before police read your Miranda rights, that silence can and will be held against you. Here's what that means: Basically, if you're ever in any trouble with police and want to keep your mouth shut, you will need to announce that you're invoking your Fifth Amendment right instead of, you know, just keeping your mouth shut. "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," reads the opinion from Justice Samuel Alito, which Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts b ...
Two stories have popped up in the last week that make my civil libertarian "hackles" stand up: the Supreme Court's ruling in Maryland v. King and the NSA snooping scandal. As a brief refresher, here's what has happened: In King, the Court held that a Maryland law that allowed for a DNA sample to be collected from each person arrested for a serious violent felony was constitutionally valid under the Fourth Amendment. The law in question allows for a cheek swab to be taken and compared to existing samples for identification purposes only. So long as the sample was used for identification purposes alone, Justice Kennedy reasoned that this technique was sufficiently similar to other identification techniques already in use such as fingerprinting and photo I.D.   The NSA story centers on two different programs which collect, catalogue, and analyze communications data like phone calls, emails, text messages, etc... The first program, called PRISM, is targeted at communications made by non-Americans outside of ...
WASHINGTON -- Three U.S. states and three countries have approved same-sex unions just in the two months since the Supreme Court heard arguments over *** marriage, raising questions about how the developments might affect the justices' consideration of the issue. In particular, close observers on both sides of the *** marriage divide are wondering whether Justice Anthony Kennedy's view could be decisive since he often has been the swing vote on the high court. It is always possible that Justice Kennedy is reading the newspapers and is impressed with the progress," said Michael Klarman, a Harvard University law professor and author of a recent book on the *** marriage fight. In earlier cases on *** rights and the death penalty, Kennedy has cited the importance of changing practices, both nationally and around the world. The court is expected to rule by late June in two cases involving same-sex marriage. One is a challenge to California's voter-approved Proposition 8 that defines marriage as the union of a ...
Erick Erickson has been forced by the Supreme Court to *** marry Justice Kennedy.
If you paid any attention to the Supreme Court's oral arguments on the Voting Rights Act on Wednesday, then you may've been surprised by Justice Kennedy's questions and concerns abou t Section 5. You probably weren't surprised, however, to see that Justice Clarence Thomas didn't ask any questions,…
In June, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on a key provisiion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This concerns a part of the law that requires states with a "history of discrimination" ... to get approval before making changes in how they change election processes and regulations. Clearly, this has helped millions exercise their right to vote Justice Scalia said the law is a "perpetuation of racial entitlement". Justice Kennedy .. seems to be siding with the Conservatives on the court and could be the vote that counts; he said: Times change. Chief Justice Roberts ... cited stats showing greater racial disparities in some aspects of voting in Massachusetts compared to Mississippi. He asked, the government's top Supreme Court lawyer: does the Obama administratiion think "citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North"? The Solicitor General answered: No. Shelby County, Alabama is challenging the law, but Liberal Justice Sotomayor claimed that recent voting rights lawsuits in tha ...
In recent arguments regarding the Voting Rights Act, Justice Kennedy is reported to have said that the Marshall Plan that rebuilt WWII- shattered Europe was “a good thing at one time, but times change.” Times can change for the good, as with the laws made to recognize and preserve civil rights. However, times and attitudes can also change for the worse. Voting is a key right to continue moving toward a more perfect union. It's a right many fought to preserve for US citizens in WWII against foreign tyranny. As seen in recent history, that battle is not over, internally. So I hope the Supreme Court of the United States would act to preserve laws that preserve rights, especially the right to vote. An interesting decision is to come.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court was asked to move from conference to oral hearing concerning the Obama eligibility case. Dr. Orly Taitz’s application, to be heard on behalf of Edward Noonan, was denied by Justice Kennedy on December 13, 2012. However, the application was refiled and resubmitted to the Chief Justice on December 26, 2012 and listed as “Distributed for Conference of Februrary 15, 2013, according to the SCOTUS website. According to Suzanne Eovaldi, “February 15, 2013, Attorney Orly Taitz brings her request to move the Obama eligibility challenge from conference to the oral hearing stage at the US Supreme Court. She is moving forward in spite of the fact that four African-American Supreme Court clerks refused to allow Taitz to see the signature of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who denied her petition originally. ‘But I resubmitted to Justice Roberts, and he sent it to the conference,’ Taitz said.” “The California attorney is asking ‘…how do we know that he (Kennedy) eve ...
Phi Alpha Delta is hosting a constitutional law conference on Saturday, March 30th! Dean Chemerinsky (Yes, THAT Chemerinsky) will be discussing the Supreme Court cases regarding same sex marriage and the potential outcomes and impact of it all. Other speakers will include Professor Leslie Griffin discussing "Religion and the Constitution" and Judge Bruce A. Markell (Author of the "Epic Fail" opinion and former clerk to Justice Kennedy when Kennedy was a member of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) who will give pragmatic advice regarding common mistakes by new attorneys. Space is limited and we will have a large portion of the seating reserved for paid Phi Alpha Delta members. Join law students from all over for this fantastic event! TO RESERVE YOUR SEAT PLEASE EMAIL PHIALPHADELTA.BOYD Reservations will be accepted on a first come first serve basis and all reservations must be able to attend the entire conference.
Robert Bork would have been the best Supreme Court Justice ever, so much better than Anthony Kennedy.
Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy will retire this Presidential term leaving Supreme Court leaning left and the 2nd Amendment in trouble.
In Poland, since the fall off the Soviet Union, the United States constitution is taught starting in fourth grade!...freshman entering college in Poland asked some profound questions to Justice Kennedy.one being you have Congress to check the president, the president to check Congress BUT who keeps in check the Supreme Court!...how profound from an 18 yr old!...watching c span at the moment!...this its where you learn info unfettered by someone elses filter!
“The independent expenditure ceiling … fails to serve any substantial governmental interest in stemming the reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral process because the absence of prearrangement and coordination . . . alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate.” - found in the Opinion of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice Kennedy, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
 border=
Women, listen up! If Mitt Romney had won the Presidential Election, women's right to choose may well have been forever changed in the United States. The United States Supreme Court currently has 4 very conservative Justices, 4 liberal Justices and one swing vote (Justice Kennedy). If Justice Kennedy or any of the liberal Justices are replaced in President Obama's second term, they would have been replaced by more very conservative Justices had Mitt Romney won the Presidential Election. What do you think would happen when new cases make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if one more conservative Justice were on the Court? Arizona is trying to "change what the Supreme Court has said" with regard to abortion law. A law "enacted in April by Arizona's Republican-led legislature to end most late-term abortions, contains an exception for narrowly defined medical emergencies. It includes as sanctions criminal penalties plus suspension or revocation of a physician's medical license if he or she violates th ...
For my friends who have some hesitation to vote for Romney, I'd just ask you to keep these things in mind: 1. Justice Scalia just turned 78 2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this yr 3. Justice Breyer will be 76 in Aug 4. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a wk ago. In addition, Justice Ginsburg has Pancreatic Cancer. 5 Justice Stephens has already said he would retire & is just waiting for Obama to be reelected. The next president could appoint as many as 5 new Justices over the next 4 yrs, or over the next 8 yrs if a new President gets a 2nd term. This election is about much more than the Obama-Care Tax. Whomever we elect as president in Nov is almost certainly going to choose at least 1 new member of the Supreme Court, in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come." If you don't think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, Think Again. So, for anybody who is thinkin ...
don't forget Justice Kennedy is retiring! 3 appointment to our Supreme Court by Obama? Justice Eric Holder???
Best of luck to the two GW Law alumni who are clerking at the Supreme Court during the October 2012 Term. Mark Taticchi, JD '10, is clerking for Justice Kennedy and Ryan Watson, JD '07, is clerking for Justice Alito.
Supreme Court Rules Strip Searches OK for Minor Offenses Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com April 2, 2012 In a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that it is permissible for jailers to strip search people arrested and jailed on minor offenses, even if they have not violated the law. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority when he said that when an arrested person is to be put into the general jail population, “courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.” Justice Stephen Breyer dissented. He said strip searches improperly “subject those arrested for minor offenses to serious invasions of their personal privacy.” The case reached the Supreme Court after Albert Florence was strip searched following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine. In fact, the fine had been paid. It is not a crime in New Jersey not to pay a fine. After six days, Flor ...
Prepare for the deluge of Citizens United money, coming to a TV station near you. Winning the prize for most short-sighted Supreme Court case of recent history; thanks a heap, Justice Kennedy.
Why is an opinion from the Supreme Court of New Zealand in my Crim Law book? Justice Kennedy is not one of its editors.
The more I mull over Justice Anthony Kennedy's decision that the health care mandate is not a requirement to purchase insurance, but rather a tax, the more I believe that he is unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court. His deciding vote--that which held-up a decision for months-- stated that the government was not mandating you to purchase anything, but is rather a tax, is ludicrous. If it is a tax levied upon you for failure to purchase or even afford health insurance, then it is a fine for not doing so, which means you are forced into a financial situation which is unrealistic. I therefore assert that Justice Kennedy was paid off, either by the administration or by the insurance industry, which has made hefty donations to the president. To quote: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark," Denmark being Washington D.C.
In a 6-3 majority decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act -- an act that imposed criminal penalties on individuals who falsely claimed to be recipients of military medals. Justice Kennedy delivered the plurality decision, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg and Jus...
House Republicans led by Speaker John Boehner appealed to the Supreme Court on Friday in a DOMA case. Here's why a leading conservative thinker says they could lose.
Subject: John Roberts Dear RedState Reader, As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it. Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess. First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts. Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the p ...
Take the time to read my diatribe and see if you agree with me about it...! So Justice Roberts, a genuine Conservative, changed his mind on striking down Obama care. Very interesting...! Up until near the end, he was on the side of the Conservative Justices, plus Justice Kennedy who quite often sides with the Liberal Justices. They had long debates among themselves about the whole bill. Kennedy as it's reported was furious with Roberts when Roberts changed his mind and decided he would vote in favor of Obama care. These reports come from 2 separate people inside the Supreme Court. About the time recently, when the Justices were warned by Obama DO NOT vote against his Obama Care, Justice Roberts changed his position from against Obama Care to FOR Obama Care. Knowing what this Obama Care means to an awful lot of people that are going to beccome very very wealthy off of Obama Care, one has to wonder if maybe Chief Justice Roberts was warned about voting against the bill. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I ...
Legitimizing Obama-Care Judge John Roberts not only made history with his appointment to the Supreme Court in 2005, he was vaulted ahead of the other justices to become the Chief amongst them. Democrats and Republicans alike were touting Judge Roberts as the smartest man in any room. Yesterday’s court ruling largely supporting Obama-Care and authored by Chief Justice Roberts, is more of an exercise in demonstrating that intellect than it is an example of classically sound judicial interpretation. Five to four rulings are not the best basis for well settled law, but they do typically provide the best examples of strong dissent and this decision does not disappoint, (in only that regard.) In the strongest part of the dissent, Justice Kennedy writes, (enacting of this law) “is to make mere breathing in and out the basis for federal prescription and to extend federal power to virtually all human activity.” Justice Thomas not only joins in the dissent, but pens his own saying, “As I have explained, th ...
Here is Rush's perspective on yesterday's ObamaCare decision. It does NOT agree with those who think Justice Robert was being brilliant or playing chess. RUSH: Okay. Look, let's cut to the chase here, folks. The reason that I'm nervous with all this speculation that Chief Justice Roberts "caved" and who "got to him" and who intimated him is simple. The reason I'm having trouble with this is that I don't think that's what happened. I believe I mentioned earlier this week (it might have been yesterday or the day before) that I had been warned years ago. I was in a conversation about justices on the court and how they respond to public pressure in the Washington Post Style Section. You know, the usual obligatory way you go and discuss the way that the media tries to influence outcome of votes on the Supreme Court. And all those conversations centered around Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. And I was warned, "It's not Kennedy you have to look out for. It's Justice Roberts." I can't tell you who told me. No ...
Okay. So after fully soaking in the bit-by-bit coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling I feel I can finally feel like I can reflect on and say it was a pleasant surprise. Chief Justice Roberts, rather than Justice Kennedy was the swing-voter, for one surprise, and the individual mandate being seen as constitutional as a tax was another. Lets tout this as a big win for President Obama.
Website Builder 728x90
what really irked me was who cast the deciding vkie in the Supreme Court today. It wasn"t Justice Kennedy like I thought, but it wasa Chief Justice Roberts. O.K., since the Supreme Court didn"t do it, we"ll have to do it at the ballot boe this November by voting out the Senate Democrats and Obama, too.
Suffice it to say when Mitt Romney next talks about U.S. Supreme Court nominations he intends to make as president, he’ll point to Antonin Scalia, or Samuel
Never has a ruling by the Supreme Court been more aptly titled as an “Opinion,” because that is exactly what Justice Kennedy and his cohorts have delivered in Arizona v. United States. It is nothing more than an open display of judicial activism. The majority opinion is not a legal explanation on th...
The surprising thing about today's Supreme Court decision was that the swing vote wasn't Justice Kennedy. It was Chief Justice Roberts. I appreciate the fact that he put legal fact above partisan politics and did his job. I doubt it was easy for him.
I am still for single-payer. The ACA is till a give away to the insurance companies and that's why Roberts voted FOR it. But it's still fun to watch *** Comes To Crazy Town". A few highlights. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): “I urge people to read the dissent that was read from the bench by Justice Kennedy and joined in by Justices Alito and also Scalia. Because that opinion said very clearly, this was an activist court that you saw today. What they did is not just uphold Obamacare, this Supreme Court re-wrote Obamacare in line with its own designs.”
Obamacare is law. The Affordable Care Act is law. I predicted passage with a 6 to 3 vote. We got a victory with a 5 to 4 vote. I was surprised that Justice Kennedy dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts saved the Supreme Court from itself. The United States Supreme Court which had decidedly taken a p...
Although no one knows how the Supreme Court will rule, Thursday, on ObamaCare, journalists over the past few months have dismissed and derided the concept that the President's signature legislation could be declared unconstitutional. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin predicted an eight-to-one vote upholding the law. Former New York Times Court reporter Linda Greenhouse said that Americans who think the law is unconstitutional are "wrong." Appearing on the March 23 Situation Room, Toobin hyped, "I actually think that Chief Justice Roberts and perhaps even Justice Scalia and Justice Alito might join Justice Kennedy in upholding the law." He added, "In striking this law down, it would really be a big change in constitutional law, and I'm not sure this court is ready to do it."
I have a premonition that the SCOTUS' ruling Thurs will strike down the individual mandate of the ACA, but uphold its remaining statutes (assuming Justice Kennedy leans liberal as he did in SB 1070). . .but, as Justice Ginsberg said: " ‘At the Supreme Court … those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know. . .' "
Today's ruling from the Supreme Court on Arizona's Immigration Enforcement Law (AZ SB 1070) has me somewhat confused in nature. Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer calls it a "Victory" admitting to new legal challenges that will be developed using new tactics, yet Justice Kennedy stated that "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law." Yes we all know that we have a broken immigration system, doesn't take a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Independent to see it, but something has to be done. The Dream Act is one way to go about it, both mainstream political parties agree somewhat on the Dream Act (just different versions), however, in order to get things done mind you, there's something called compromise. Bi-Partisan politics isn't enough these days, yes there are somethings that can be done in that way, but not everything. Obama may have done what he did i ...
Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona Immigration Law, strikes down rest By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 1 hr 55 mins ago The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal Immigration Law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. That part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona. Other parts of the law, including a provision that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked, as the justices affirmed the federal government's supremacy over immigration policy. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, wrote the opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially dissented, saying the entire law should have been upheld. In the opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that t ...
While most readers found the recent Time Magazine profile of Justice Anthony Kennedy to be an innocuous piece about the justice who has emerged as a deciding vote on some of the more divisive Supreme Court decisions, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) sees a surreptitious effort by the media to convince K...
Rättsstaten har nu definitvt abdikerat i USA New York Times June 13, 2012 Court Retreats on Habeas When the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Congress could not strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from non-American prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, the 5-to-4 majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to be a landmark victory for the rights of detainees. “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Kennedy wrote in Boumediene v. Bush, and “the framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance,” must be part of the American legal framework. But this week the court rejected appeals in seven habeas cases involving detainees challenging the legality of their imprisonment. (The justices also rejected an appeal in a separate civil suit brought by Jose Padilla, an American citizen, against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials for abuse and torture during his de ...
Skimming through this week's TIME: The favorable comments on Joe Klein's article on Geisinger Care, and the previous week's article itself, reassures me on the Affordable Care Act (absent death panels), but an ideological 4-4 Supreme Court split will be decided by Justice Kennedy, and NObudy is predicting which way he'll go. Scott Walker's survival depended on out-of-state money. Citizen's Rights was upheld by the swing vote of Kennedy. 20% of super PAC money came from women. Coincidentally, 20% of respondents in a poll admitted to peeing in pools. ( I swear this was in TIME, but I see absolutely no connection... between the two 20%'s) Twice as many teens have been hired for summer jobs, compared to last year. Under Prez Obama, cyberweapons programs have expanded since the Bush Admin started it. Supposedly, Israel has successfuly infiltrated Iran's computer system...again. (I think I see a connection, which I applaude) Highest coffee consumption is in all four Scandinavian countries, plus Icela ...
A Brief for Justice Kennedy - on *** marriage as it works its way to Supreme Court - by Bill Keller
I know people are bent out of shape over North Carolina today. But I'm pretty sure there are five votes on the Supreme Court ready to end this injustice. And this continued trampling of rights at the ballot box, might actually help steel Justice Kennedy to make the right decision.
Tablet insurance available.  Get yours today!
"So you're saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws?", Justice Anthony Kennedy in oral argument yesterday before the US Supreme Court with regard to Arizona Immigration Law in response to argument of Solicitor General attorney (i.e., Obama adminstration lawyer)..thanks, Justice Kennedy, we've wanted that question answered for a long time..
With less than 200 days to the general election I need to get back home and get crackin. no that is not a typo. As I look in my pockets we are running out of CHANGE. Seriously folks. I can't believe the media did not vet Senator Obama four years ago. Conservatives must heed my prior concerns that reach beyond the White House. President Obama appointed 2 Justices to the Supreme Court. The next president will possibly appoint another two which can result in a new direction that we truly don't wish to face. As it is we are barely 5-4 depending on Justice Kennedy. While we can debate whether or not Mitt is "conservative" enough for us look at the alternative.
Nice debate at Reach Out Wisconsin Tuesday night on the Citizens United, Supreme Court free speech decision. Libs tried to make the case that court was unduly "activist." Here is what Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority: "The Court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment. It is not judicial restraint to accept an unsound, narrow argument just so the Court can avoid another argument with broader implications. ... When the Government holds out the possibility of ruling for Citizens United on a narrow ground yet refrains from adopting that position, the added uncertainty demonstrates the necessity to address the question of statutory validity. "When the FEC issues advisory opinions that prohibit speech, “[m]any persons, rather than undertake the considerable burden (and sometimes risk) of vindicating their rights through case-by-case litigation, will choose simply to abstain from protected ...
Dear Campus Community, Professor Frank Colucci has been providing expert commentary on the U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberations regarding the national health care debate. In the past week, The New York Times noted Professor Colucci’s recent book on Justice Kennedy in a front page article. In addition, Professor Colucci has been called upon by The Miami Herald among other newspapers to *** the role that Justice Kennedy will play in the pending Supreme Court ruling. Professor Colucci has been on leave of absence this past year having been awarded a fellowship at the Keller Center for the Study of the First Amendment at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He is returning the Purdue Calumet campus this summer.
Mark Levin on FNC right now speaking about the veiled threats aimed at Supreme Court (ie Justice Kennedy) by the creep-and-chief
Hurricane Irma North Korea Hillary Clinton Trump Jr White House Donald Trump Social Security Hurricane Harvey North Korean Star Wars South Florida Kim Kardashian President Trump Puerto Rico Bell Pottinger Virgin Islands Venus Williams Jennifer Lawrence Taco Bell Reese Witherspoon Del Potro South Korea Suu Kyi President Donald Trump Katie Holmes Selena Gomez Theresa May Gene Michael South Korean Gold Star Pope Francis Supreme Court Kid Rock White Sox Prince George Prince Harry Aung San Suu Kyi Angela Merkel Necker Island Manchester United James Corden Mutual Fund Middle East Obama Administration Oprah Winfrey Emmanuel Macron John Cena Ronald Koeman Donald Trump Jr Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Dream Act Robert Mueller Kim Jong Arsene Wenger Ivanka Trump Graydon Carter Michelle Mone Premier League Barack Obama Harry Potter Prince William Catholic Church George Clooney Vanity Fair Kanye West Deferred Action Warner Bros City Hall Goodwood Revival Daily News Kyle Long Northern Lights Steve Baker Shailene Woodley George Michael Sports Direct Jaguar Land Rover Ben Woodburn Curb Your Enthusiasm David Davis Safe House Mike Glennon Katie Price David Copperfield Charlie Campbell Coming Back Tom Brady Stephen King Mitch Trubisky West Indies Rohingya Muslims Kathleen Kennedy Google Drive George Smiley Guinness Book Jo Johnson James Anderson Andy Capp East Midlands Come Dancing
© 2017