Changes

[[Image:Kennedy.jpg|right]]

 

|image=Kennedy.jpg

|preceded=[[Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.]]

The Honorable '''Anthony Kennedy''' is a Supreme Court justice who was nominated by [[Ronald Reagan]] after [[Lewis Powell]] retired. Kennedy shared a deep background and association with Reagan, who turned to him after two prior nominations to a vacancy on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] had not been confirmed.

The Honorable '''Anthony Kennedy''' is a Supreme Court justice who was nominated by [[Ronald Reagan]] after [[Lewis Powell]] retired. Kennedy shared a deep background and association with Reagan, who turned to him after two prior nominations to a vacancy on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] had not been confirmed.

== Judicial Philosophy ==

== Judicial Philosophy ==

Beginning with the replacement of Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] with Justice [[Samuel Alito]], Justice 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, Justice 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>

Justice 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, Justice 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:

*[[Establishment Clause]]

*[[Establishment Clause]]

*[[partial birth abortion]]

*[[partial birth abortion]]

*[[federalism]]<ref>Justice Kennedy's praise of [[federalism]] and dual sovereignty is often quoted from his concurrence in ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'', 514 U.S. 549 (1995) ("federalism was the unique contribution of the Framers to political science and political theory. Though on the surface the idea may seem counter-intuitive, it was the insight of the Framers that freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one")</ref>

*[[federalism]]<ref>Kennedy's praise of [[federalism]] and dual sovereignty is often quoted from his concurrence in ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'', 514 U.S. 549 (1995) ("federalism was the unique contribution of the Framers to political science and political theory. Though on the surface the idea may seem counter-intuitive, it was the insight of the Framers that freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one")</ref>

*criminal procedure, such as [[Kyllo v. United States]]

*criminal procedure, such as [[Kyllo v. United States]]

*business law, such as [[Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs]]

*business law, such as [[Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs]]

But Justice Kennedy has voted with the [[liberal]] side of the Court on these issues:

But Kennedy has voted with the [[liberal]] side of the Court on these issues:

 

*[[Roe v. Wade]]

*[[Roe v. Wade]]

*pornography

*pornography

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

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

Justice 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>

:The Court, in my respectful submission, disregards the fundamental principle under our constitutional system that different branches of government "converse with each other on matters of vital common interest." ''Mistretta v. United States'', 488 U.S. 361, 408 (1989). As the Court in ''Mistretta'' explained, the Constitution establishes a system of government that presupposes, not just "'autonomy'" and "'separateness,'" but also "'interdependence'" and "'reciprocity.'" Id., at 381, 102 L. Ed. 2d 714, 109 S. Ct. 647 (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635, 96 L. Ed. 1153, 72 S. Ct. 863 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring)). Constant, constructive discourse between our courts and our legislatures is an integral and admirable part of the constitutional design. Case-by-case judicial determinations often yield intelligible patterns that can be refined by legislatures and codified into statutes or rules as general standards. As these legislative enactments are followed by incremental judicial interpretation, the legislatures may respond again, and the cycle repeats. This recurring dialogue, an essential source for the elaboration and the evolution of the law, is basic constitutional theory in action.

:The Court, in my respectful submission, disregards the fundamental principle under our constitutional system that different branches of government "converse with each other on matters of vital common interest." ''Mistretta v. United States'', 488 U.S. 361, 408 (1989). As the Court in ''Mistretta'' explained, the Constitution establishes a system of government that presupposes, not just "'autonomy'" and "'separateness,'" but also "'interdependence'" and "'reciprocity.'" Id., at 381, 102 L. Ed. 2d 714, 109 S. Ct. 647 (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635, 96 L. Ed. 1153, 72 S. Ct. 863 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring)). Constant, constructive discourse between our courts and our legislatures is an integral and admirable part of the constitutional design. Case-by-case judicial determinations often yield intelligible patterns that can be refined by legislatures and codified into statutes or rules as general standards. As these legislative enactments are followed by incremental judicial interpretation, the legislatures may respond again, and the cycle repeats. This recurring dialogue, an essential source for the elaboration and the evolution of the law, is basic constitutional theory in action.