Changes

== Judicial Philosophy ==

== Judicial Philosophy ==

 

Beginning with the replacement of Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] with Justice [[Samuel Alito]], Kennedy became the key swing vote on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] on several issues, including [[abortion]], [[enemy combatants]] and [[environmental]] cases.<ref>In the 2006 Term ending June 2007, Kennedy had ruled with environmentalists in granting [[EPA]] authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but he had ruled against them in narrowing the [[EPA]]'s obligations under the [[Endangered Species Act]] (ESA).</ref>

Beginning with the replacement of Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] with Justice [[Samuel Alito]], Kennedy became the key swing vote on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] on several issues, including [[abortion]], [[enemy combatants]] and [[environmental]] cases.<ref>In the 2006 Term ending June 2007, Kennedy had ruled with environmentalists in granting [[EPA]] authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but he had ruled against them in narrowing the [[EPA]]'s obligations under the [[Endangered Species Act]] (ESA).</ref>

Kennedy is willing to overrule precedents and deemphasize [[stare decisis]]. He has written court opinions that have overruled both [[liberal]] and [[conservative]] precedents, in areas ranging from the [[Eighth Amendment]] ([[death penalty]]) to [[homosexual]] rights to [[antitrust law]].

Kennedy is willing to overrule precedents and deemphasize [[stare decisis]]. He has written court opinions that have overruled both [[liberal]] and [[conservative]] precedents, in areas ranging from the [[Eighth Amendment]] ([[death penalty]]) to [[homosexual]] rights to [[antitrust law]].

In general terms, Kennedy has voted with the [[conservative]] side of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] on these issues:

In general terms, Kennedy has voted with the [[conservative]] side of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] on these issues:

*immigration<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2206039/</ref>

*immigration<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2206039/</ref>

Kennedy tends to support interdependence and reciprocity between the branches of government rather than the strict [[separation of powers]] advocated by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]. For example, Justice Kennedy dissented from the ''[[Blakely v. Washington]]'':<ref>542 U.S. at 326-28 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).</ref>

Kennedy tends to support interdependence and reciprocity between the branches of government rather than the strict [[separation of powers]] advocated by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]. For example, Justice Kennedy dissented from the ''[[Blakely v. Washington]]'':<ref>542 U.S. at 326-28 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).</ref>

:To be sure, this case concerns the work of a state legislature, and not of Congress. If anything, however, this distinction counsels even greater judicial caution. Unlike Mistretta, the case here implicates not just the collective wisdom of legislators on the other side of the continuing dialogue over fair sentencing, but also the interest of the States to serve as laboratories for innovation and experiment. See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311, 76 L. Ed. 747, 52 S. Ct. 371 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). With no apparent sense of irony that the effect of today's decision is the destruction of a sentencing scheme devised by democratically elected legislators, the majority shuts down alternative, nonjudicial, sources of ideas and experience. It does so under a faintly disguised distrust of judges and their purported usurpation of the jury's function in criminal trials. It tells not only trial judges who have spent years studying the problem but also legislators who have devoted valuable time and resources "calling upon the accumulated wisdom and experience of the Judicial Branch . . . on a matter uniquely within the ken of judges," Mistretta, supra, at 412, 102 L. Ed. 2d 714, 109 S. Ct. 647, that their efforts and judgments were all for naught. Numerous States that have enacted sentencing guidelines similar to the one in Washington State are now commanded to scrap everything and start over.

:To be sure, this case concerns the work of a state legislature, and not of Congress. If anything, however, this distinction counsels even greater judicial caution. Unlike Mistretta, the case here implicates not just the collective wisdom of legislators on the other side of the continuing dialogue over fair sentencing, but also the interest of the States to serve as laboratories for innovation and experiment. See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311, 76 L. Ed. 747, 52 S. Ct. 371 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). With no apparent sense of irony that the effect of today's decision is the destruction of a sentencing scheme devised by democratically elected legislators, the majority shuts down alternative, nonjudicial, sources of ideas and experience. It does so under a faintly disguised distrust of judges and their purported usurpation of the jury's function in criminal trials. It tells not only trial judges who have spent years studying the problem but also legislators who have devoted valuable time and resources "calling upon the accumulated wisdom and experience of the Judicial Branch . . . on a matter uniquely within the ken of judges," Mistretta, supra, at 412, 102 L. Ed. 2d 714, 109 S. Ct. 647, that their efforts and judgments were all for naught. Numerous States that have enacted sentencing guidelines similar to the one in Washington State are now commanded to scrap everything and start over.

==Personal life==

==Personal life==

== References ==

== References ==

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kennedy, Anthony}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kennedy, Anthony}}

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]

[[Category:Judicial Activism]]

[[Category:Judicial Activism]]

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]