Latest news with #AnthonyKennedy
Fox News
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Ex-Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pleads for civil political discourse, warns 'democracy is at risk'
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned Thursday that the tone of political discourse and threats to judges are undermining the ability of the U.S. to serve as an example of freedom and democracy around the world. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2018 during President Donald Trump's first term, was speaking during a virtual forum about threats to the rule of law, as he defended the role of judges in a democracy and advocated for the need to protect them and their families from threats. "Many in the rest of the world look to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be," Kennedy said during the "Speak Up for Justice" event, one day before the current Supreme Court justices are set to deliver their final rulings of the current term. "If they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk. Freedom is at risk," he continued. Kennedy did not mention Trump, even as other participants expressed concern about the barrage of threats and attacks against judges for blocking key parts of the president's political agenda during his second term, including his immigration policies, firings of federal workers and his implementation of broad-based tariffs. But Kennedy's remarks appeared to be sparked, at least in part, by the Trump administration's repeated attacks against judges who have ruled against him, including some whom he appointed during his first term. In March, Trump criticized U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg as a "radical left lunatic" and called for his impeachment after he attempted to block the administration from removing alleged Venezuelan gang members from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime presidential power Trump invoked. Last month, Trump attacked "USA-hating" judges as "monsters who want our country to go to hell." Trump's rhetoric has come alongside an uptick in threats against judges, according to POLITICO, although spokespeople for the administration have said the president is against any threats and that they would face prosecution from the Justice Department. Kennedy said "judges must have protection for themselves and their families" and that "judges are best protected when the public and our nation realize how central they are to our discourse." "We should be concerned in this country about, as I've already indicated, the tone of our political discourse," he said. "Identity politics are used so that a person is characterized by his or her partisan affiliation. That's not what democracy and civil discourse is about." Other participants at the forum, which featured judges from the U.S. and other countries who warned about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies, also took aim at Trump's statement denouncing the courts. Without mentioning Trump by name, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who went to her New Jersey home in 2020, said disinformation about judges was spreading "from the top down," with jurists attacked as "rogue" and "corrupt." "Judges are rogue. Sound familiar? Judges are corrupt. Sound familiar? Judges are monsters. … Judges hate America," Salas said. "We are seeing the spreading of disinformation coming from the top down." Salas warned that the number of threats recorded against judges this year was reaching historic heights in the U.S., noting that the U.S. Marshals Service has tracked more than 400 threats against judges since January, when Trump was inaugurated. "We're going to break records, people, and not in a good way," she said.
Newsweek
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Former Supreme Court Justice Warns Freedom and Democracy 'At Risk'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Amid an uptick in threats to judges, former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned that the current hostility in America's political discourse imperils freedom and democracy. Why It Matters Rhetoric by President Donald Trump, including calls on social media for the impeachment of judges who have ruled against his policies, has triggered urgent warnings from current and former members of the Supreme Court about the stability of the country's legal systems. These attacks, which have included labeling judges as "troublemakers" and "monsters" in public posts, have raised concerns about undermining the independence of the judiciary, an institution considered essential to protecting American democracy. Current Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican appointee, also referenced the public attacks on judges in a rare statement, saying, "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose." What To Know In a virtual forum on Thursday for the event "Speak Up for Justice," with other judges from around the world, Kennedy said that "We should be concerned in this country about, as I've already indicated, the tone of our political discourse," according to Reuters. The Ronald Reagan appointee continued: "Identity politics are used so that a person is characterized by his or her partisan affiliation. That's not what democracy and civil discourse is about." Kennedy noted that the rest of the world seems to monitor how things operate in the United States "to see what democracy ought to be." "And if they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk," the retired justice said. "Freedom is at risk." He urged for judges and their families to have protection, and said they are best protected "when the public and our nation realize how central they are to our discourse." Kennedy did not mention Trump by name during the event, Reuters reports. Former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy speaks at the World Law Congress at U.N. headquarters in New York City on July 21, 2023. (Photo by YUKI IWAMURA/AFP via Getty Images) Former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy speaks at the World Law Congress at U.N. headquarters in New York City on July 21, 2023. (Photo by YUKI IWAMURA/AFP via Getty Images) Trump has sharply criticized jurists who have ruled against his administration's key policies—most notably U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg—whom he described as a "troublemaker and agitator" while calling for his impeachment after the judge blocked usage of the Alien Enemies Act for deportation flights. According to Politico, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose family was targeted in a fatal attack in 2020, noted during the same virtual event that the U.S. Marshals Service has recorded over 400 threats against federal judges so far this year. Salas attributed the rise to disinformation and inflammatory rhetoric "from the top down." What People Are Saying Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in May on threats to judges, in part: "The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law." Trump, during his 100th day in office speech in Michigan, in part: "We cannot allow a handful of communist radical left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States. Judges are trying to take away the power given to the president to keep our country safe ... it's not a good thing." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, to Newsweek when asked if Kennedy's comments were a poke at Trump: "It's clearly a poke at the President, especially because Justice Kennedy's exit from the Court allowed Trump to shift it to the right with the appointment of Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh." What Happens Next As threats continue to be tracked by law enforcement, congressional debate and judicial responses are expected to intensify as the Supreme Court approaches the conclusion of its current term.
Reuters
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Retired US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy warns 'freedom is at risk'
June 26 (Reuters) - Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Thursday expressed concern about the "tone of our political discourse" as he defended the role judges play in a democracy and argued for the need to protect them and their families from threats. Kennedy, who retired from the top court in 2018 during Republican President Donald Trump's first term, made the remarks during a virtual forum featuring judges from other countries who warned about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies. Kennedy, in rare public remarks, did not mention Trump during the "Speak Up for Justice" event, even as other participants voiced alarm about the barrage of threats and attacks the judiciary has faced as key parts of the Republican president's second-term agenda have been blocked in courts. But Kennedy, who was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, stressed that "the rest of the world, many in the rest of the world, look to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be." "And if they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk," Kennedy said. "Freedom is at risk." Kennedy said "judges must have protection for themselves and their families." He said "judges are best protected when the public and our nation realize how central they are to our discourse." "We should be concerned in this country about, as I've already indicated, the tone of our political discourse," he said. "Identity politics are used so that a person is characterized by his or her partisan affiliation. That's not what democracy and civil discourse is about." South African jurist Richard Goldstone, who called himself a friend of Kennedy's, criticized what "have been personal attacks on the independence of some judges who have ruled against the administration," saying the judges were fulfilling their duties. U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who went to her New Jersey home in 2020, said disinformation about judges was spreading "from the top down," with jurists being derided as "rogue" and "corrupt." She warned during the event that the number of threats recorded against judges this year were reaching historic heights in the United States. "We're going to break records, people, and not in a good way," she said. Read more: Trump-appointed judges warn of threats, criticize calls to impeach judges Conservative US appeals court judge knocks calls to impeach jurists Republicans seek impeachment of 2 more judges who stymied Trump US Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump's attack on judge US judiciary warns of threats amid 'concerning' calls to impeach judges
Fox News
a day ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Legalized same-sex marriage turns 10 after landmark Supreme Court decision reshaped American law and culture
The Supreme Court 10 years ago voted to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, a landmark 5-4 ruling that changed the course of U.S. history — touching off profound changes in public opinion, as well as seismic cultural shifts. "No longer may this liberty be denied," Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry." The June 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges ensured same-sex couples were guaranteed the same protections and benefits as their heterosexual peers. However, the ruling is not without its detractors. In fact, 10 years after the high court's decision, recent polling shows that public opinion on same-sex marriage is more divided than ever. The 10-year anniversary of Obergefell also comes at a tense political moment. The White House and Congress are governed, as of January 2025, by a new conservative majority — sidelining progressives and emboldening at least some Republican lawmakers who have signaled interest in challenging the Supreme Court's landmark decision. It also comes as the conservative-majority Supreme Court has taken up important cases involving LGBTQ+ eduction, gender-related care and more. Ten years after the court's landmark decision, here is a look at where things stand. The nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage has made such unions more visible, increasing the number of Americans with personal connections to couples directly affected by the Supreme Court's ruling. In fact, the number of married, same-sex couples in the U.S. has more than doubled since 2015, according to data from the Williams Institute at UCLA's College of Law. In the decade since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell, public support for same-sex marriage has continued to climb, driven in large part by support from Democrat and Independent voters, though voters across all parties and demographics have seen an uptick, according to data from Gallup surveys over the past 10 years. Nearly 7 in 10 U.S. voters, or 68% of Americans, said this year that they support same-sex marriage, according to a Gallup poll conducted last month — an 8% increase compared to the 60% majority who said the same in 2015. Buoyed by popular support, then-President Joe Biden codified same-sex marriage protections at the federal level in 2022 by signing the Respect for Marriage Act, which required the federal government to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages performed in states where they are legal. While the law stops short of ordering states or territories to marry same-sex couples, it does require them to recognize the marriages as legitimate, so long as they are valid in the state which they were performed. However, that is not to say these actions have been without detractors. Support for same-sex marriage has dropped among Republicans in recent years, with the number of registered Republican voters who said they support same-sex marriage dropping from a 55% majority in 2021 to just 41% in 2025, according to data compiled by Gallup. It is unclear what exactly prompted the shift. However, at least some Republican lawmakers in state legislatures across the country have urged the high court, via symbolic resolutions, to revisit Obergefell and change the nationwide right to same-sex marriage. In fact, state legislatures in 2024 introduced more than 500 "anti-LBGT" bills, according to the ACLU. Though few of those bills were passed, supporters of same-sex marriage fear that backlash is growing to LGBTQ+ protections — and suggesting it could be an indicator of future opposition — preempting a legal challenge to Obergefell that could, eventually, make its way back to the Supreme Court. Recent Supreme Court decisions have yielded more speculation as to how a conservative-majority court might rule on same-sex marriage, should they decide to take up any cases challenging Obergefell. Justices sent shock waves through the nation in 2022 when they overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. The decision also sparked renewed fears that the high court could revisit same-sex marriage protections. Justice Clarence Thomas, for his part, explicitly suggested the court should do so in his concurring majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, the case that overturned Roe, writing that the court has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in Obergefell and other similar cases. "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents … [including] Obergefell," he added. President Donald Trump has declined, in large part, to weigh in publicly on the matter. He has, however, taken action to reverse course on Biden-era actions, including signing an executive order on his first day in office declaring that the U.S. will recognize only "two sexes," male and female, according to a copy of the text. Experts told Fox News Digital they would not be surprised to see Republican-led challenges to Obergefell, with some pointing in particular the Supreme Court's decision earlier this month in United States v. Skrmetti — another pivotal case in which justices on the high court voted 6-3 to uphold a Tennessee law banning certain medical care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to transgender adolescents in the state. Skrmetti was one of the most closely watched cases of the Supreme Court's term, and advocates for LGBTQ+ organizations such as the ACLU and Lamda Legal, which argued the case in December, have cited fears that the decision could serve as a legal pretext for future cases involving LGBTQ+ protections — including whether sexual orientation qualifies as a "protected class" on par with race or national origin. "I wouldn't be surprised if somebody tried to unwind marriage equality," Ethan J. Leib, a professor at Fordham Law, told Fox News Digital in an interview following the court's decision last week. He noted that the justices who joined John Roberts in the majority opinion — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — "seemed like they did not want to decide whether trans people are a quasi-suspect classification." "My guess is that, if they get another case that's really about transgender adults," they might be willing to see the "technical differences" between them — which he said could carve out room for the justices to distinguish themselves from other conservatives on the court. He also noted Roberts seemingly went to great lengths to determine what counts as a sex classification, which could ultimately make it "much harder" for them to undo Obergefell in the near-term. At the end of the day, Leib said, "I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to unwind marriage equality" and the protections provided under federal law. "I think I'd be surprised if there were five votes for it," he said of securing the majority votes to overturn Obergefell. "But you know, but I could, I could see a way of counting to five."
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
David Souter, former Supreme Court justice, dead at 85
Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a low-key New England Republican who was an unexpectedly liberal voice in his 18 years on the nation's top court, died at his home on Thursday, the Supreme Court announced. He was 85. "Justice David Souter served our Court with great distinction for nearly twenty years. He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement Friday. Souter was little-known nationally in 1990 when President George H.W. Bush nominated him to succeed retiring Justice William Brennan, who had been the cornerstone of the court's liberal bloc for more than 30 years. Souter's nomination was expected to bring about a substantial shift to the right, but he quickly established himself as an independent force on the Court. 'Souter was confirmed October 2, 1990, by a 90-9 vote,' wrote John J. Sullivan in 1995's 'The Supreme Court Justices,' 'and took his seat on the Court a week later. He has since emerged as the intellectual leader of the Court's centrist coalition, often carving out a middle ground for other justices to join. A moderate pragmatist, Souter shows a strong respect for precedent.' In 1992 in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Souter joined with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to write an opinion upholding the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. The ruling modified the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationally, giving states some latitude to restrict abortion, but upheld its essence, basing it at least partially on the importance of maintaining the court's credibility. 'To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question," the trio wrote. The ruling stood until the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case essentially obliterated both it and Roe v. Wade. Souter increasingly voted with the court's liberals as the years went on. In that regard, he came to be an another example of a Republican appointee to the nation's highest court who turned out to be a great disappointment to the president who picked him and the conservatives who backed them, following in the footsteps of Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and Brennan. Others, though, found much to like in his Yankee pragmatism. 'He approached judging as he approaches life, with a feverish work ethic and a good sense of humor, with integrity, equanimity and compassion,' President Barack Obama said at the time of Souter's retirement in 2009, 'the hallmark of not just being a good judge, but of being a good person. David Hackett Souter was born Sept. 17, 1939, in Melrose, Massachusetts. He spent much of his youth living in the town of Weare in rural New Hampshire. After being voted 'most likely to succeed' at Concord High School, he went on to Harvard and became a Rhodes Scholar. Years later, he would become only the third Rhodes Scholar on the Supreme Court, following John Marshall Harlan II and Byron White. After his studies in England, Souter returned to Harvard to study law. He started his career in private practice, but moved on the state Attorney General's office in 1968. Attorney General Warren Rudman appointed him as deputy three years later, and Souter succeeded Rudman when he left the position in 1976. Souter went on to serve as an associate justice on the state Supreme Court and, briefly, as judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. When Brennan left the Supreme Court in 1990, Rudman — by then an influential U.S. senator — urged White House chief of staff John H. Sununu — another New Hampshire Republican — to push Souter for the court. Bush, at the time, was trying to avoid another bruising confirmation battle like the one that had torpedoed nominee Robert Bork in 1987. Souter, dubbed by some a 'stealth' nominee, was nowhere near as well-known or controversial as Bork. 'When Souter was nominated, he was as little-known as any nominee could be,' Jeff Greenfield wrote of him in 2018. In his confirmation hearing, Souter laid out his elements of his philosophy. 'The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we are in, whatever we are doing, whether we are in a trial court or an appellate court, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected,' he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate voted 90-9 to confirm him. ''He's just exactly the kind of person with a broad background that we need on the Supreme Court,'' Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in explaining his support. But Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) and Sen. Brock Adams (D-Wash.) said they could not vote for him because he would not state his position on abortion. A 1992 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, soon brought that issue to the fore. The Supreme Court had been expected to use it to overrule Roe v. Wade. Not only did the court not do that but the O'Connor-Kennedy-Souter trio used the case to affirm the value of precedent. 'When announcing decisions from the bench, Justices usually offer a summary or read brief excerpts,' the New York Times wrote. 'On this morning, however, each of the three — first O'Connor, then Kennedy and finally Souter — orally delivered major portions of the trio opinion. Journalists quickly realized they were witnessing an unprecedented event.' The Times added: 'The most eloquent section of the opinion was the discussion of Roe and the principle of stare decisis — Latin for judicial respect of existing precedent — that had been crafted principally by David Souter." In 2000, Souter was one of four justices who voted in Bush v. Gore for Florida's election recount to continue; the majority voted to end the recount, which had the effect of guaranteeing Republican George W. Bush's victory in the presidential election over Democrat Al Gore. Writer Jeffrey Toobin later asserted that the 'crudely partisan' decision so disturbed Souter that he considered resigning. Souter developed into a champion of the First Amendment, particularly when it came to free speech and the separation of church and state. In 1992, for instance, he dissented in Cohen v. Cowles Media Company, in which a confidential source sued over being outed by the publication that he had provided information to. 'Freedom of the press is ultimately founded on the value of enhancing such discourse for the sake of a citizenry better informed and thus more prudently self-governed,' he wrote. In 2005, he wrote the majority opinion in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, a 5-4 ruling that deemed displays of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses as unconstitutional. A year later, he wrote a dissent in Garcetti v. Ceballos in which he argued in support of the free speech rights of public employees in their official capacities. Souter voted with the majority in Kelo v. New London, a 2005 case that upheld the taking of private property by government through eminent domain. Activists angered by the ruling proposed having Souter's farmhouse in Weare, N.H., seized and converted into what they wanted to call the 'Lost Liberty Hotel.' "The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare,' wrote Logan Darrow Clements. But in March 2006, voters in Weare rejected the seizure of Souter's property. (Souter subsequently moved to another New Hampshire community, seeking, among other things, a better space to house his numerous books.) Souter's public image was that of a mild-mannered Yankee, though court observers knew him to be a bit more colorful than that. 'Souter has developed a reputation as a charming wit,' Sullivan wrote, 'with a wry sense of humor who delights in entertaining colleagues and visitors with tall tales. Despite his move to Washington, D.C., Souter retains the traits of a rugged individualistic New Englander. He refuses to wear an overcoat, even on the coldest days, and he brings his lunch to work (usually an apple and yogurt). At night, after work, he will often go for a long run.' In 2004, Souter was assaulted while jogging in Washington, sustaining minor injuries. There was no indication that it was a targeted attack. Souter never lost his fondness for New Hampshire and also balked at technology. "Rather than fly home, Souter preferred to drive,' Nina Totenberg wrote in 2009. 'He also resisted other forms of contemporary technology and convenience, holding out against the cell phone and e-mail and continuing to write his opinions and dissents in longhand, using a fountain pen.' On May 1, 2009, President Barack Obama announced Souter's intention to retire at the end of the term. 'I wish him safe travels on his journey home to his beloved New Hampshire and on the road ahead,' Obama said. After stepping down, Souter returned to hearing cases on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In one 2013 case, Souter wrote the opinion that removed a judge (a former federal prosecutor) from the trial of notorious Boston mobster James "Whitey" Bulger. 'It is clear that a reasonable person might question the judge's ability to preserve impartiality,' Souter wrote. Though he was largely out of the public eye, conservatives pointed to Souter as an example of what can go wrong if judicial appointments aren't thoroughly vetted. The Federalist Society, in particular, offered up lists of possible justices intended to preclude surprises like Souter. 'It was such a different world then, which he personified," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, looking back at Souter's appointment in 2018. Others looked back fondly at what Souter represented. After the 2022 Dobbs ruling, an emeritus professor at the University of Chicago School of Law saluted Souter for the way he handled himself on the court 30 years earlier. 'No one has proposed him for sainthood,' Timothy O'Neill wrote of him. 'No one has a bobble-head of Justice Souter. No one cloyingly refers to him as 'DHS.' But Justice Souter exemplifies the kind of humility and grace that receives scant attention in our celebrity-driven, 24/7 news-cycle world.'
