Talk:Anthony Kennedy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Edits regarding McClatchy High

I'm doing an edit to his alma maters and his personal history, so my alma mater's most signifcant alum can be connected to McClatchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.148.215 (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo of justice kennedy

Could someone upload a more recent photo of Justice Kennedy? This one is from 1980s.

Unfortunately, decent PD photographs of the Justices are hard to come by on the web. --tomf688^(talk) 20:50, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like Kennedy is camera shy. He never participates in those roundtable discussions like Breyer, Scalia, and OConnor did. If the official portraits are non copyright then maybe someone could find the recent one and edit his picture to be suitable for the article.

I remember something after Rehnquist died that all the other justices released statements, and the newscaster said something to the tune of "No statement is expected from Justice Anthony Kennedy." I found that more than a little contrite. But thats beside the point...

Kennedy was in Beijing at the time of Rehnquist death.

From all accounts, Justice Kennedy is a big fan of the 1st amendment and of the internet (much to the consternation of house republicans). Why doesn't someone located near D.C. just ask him (or a clerk) for a recent photograph?

Since there's a new Chief justice, presumabley a new group picture will be forthcoming, or they'll wait for someone to replace O'Connor

I added a new picture of Kennedy. The previous one was from 1988!!!<<Coburn_Pharr>>

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anthony Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anthony Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Abortion

The abortion section of this article might be updated today given Kennedy's swing vote in the upholding of the partial-birth abortion ban. Robert K S 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this. But I made some changes to the abortion and "gay rights" sections of the Kennedy entry that further explained the dynamic post-Casey. They were "reverted" quickly after. I'm unsure why. The edits I made were to further elucidate the impact of the differences between O'Connor and Kennedy on the meaning of the Casey plurality (which was incorrectly called a "majority" opinion on the site before my edit). Furthermore, it seems important to note on the gay rights section that the boy scouts opinion was a unanimous opinion and that the decision did not rest on any "gay rights" arguments but rather on the rights of a private organization to define its membership. The article before my edits did not make that clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.34.234.180 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my bad. I fixed it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

style

The word "controvercial" is used a lot in this text. Can it be justified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.120.187 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"On the other hand, Kennedy has..."??? What other hand? There is no antiphasis there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.120.187 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute-- Vote

Someone* without explanation keeps inserting the comment that Justice Kennedy is a "liberal." This user has rejected such compromises as "swing vote" and "moderate" and insists on "moderate liberal." I am not going to waste my time laying out the case for why Kennedy is not a "liberal" (Bush v. Gore springs to mind; as do all of his 4th and 5th Amend. rulings like Hiibel) but rather a "moderate." So I'll open this up to a good ole English-language Wikipedia VOTE! Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
additionally problematic, is the same user putting on that in fact, O'Connor is the only moderate on the bench, and the implication that Kennedy is to the left of O'Connor. While a minority political argument, this is not NPOV, and is unfounded by common understanding.

FOR "MODERATE LIBERAL"

FOR SIMPLY "MODERATE"

~~Please Don't Block
If not Moderate, then conservative. Liberal is not appropriate in reference to Kennedy. Srcastic 14:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

- Some anonymous user continues to revert the page every opportunity to reinsert his "liberal" comment. Given that he has reverted now well over three times without commenting on the talk page or explaining, I think admin action would be appropriate now. I will not revert the page, however, because it is against wikipedia policy to allow three reverts. The responsibility lies where the power is; the power is with the admins. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

- - Parsing liberal vs. Conservative is, as I think you know, Block, not a cut and dried thing. However, Kennedy is almost certainly not a liberal in the way these things are commonly understood. And asserting that O'Connor is the only moderate on the bench is not only wrong, it's totally POV. In my view (and the few of some others) O'Connor is a bit of a waffler with no coherent judicial philosophy. She hands down rulings more like she was expecting someone to vote on her next term of office, rather than as a justice for life. This does not make her moderate, merely confused. IronDuke 01:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

- If I was going to vote, I would go with moderate. I have written a suggested paragraph to replace the opening paragraph on ideology. Obviously, feel free to make any edits to the grammar, spelling, or prose to make it sound a little better. But overall, I think I'm presenting a fairly NPOV commentary on Kennedy's ideology. Basically, if someone comes to the Anthony Kennedy article on Wikipedia looking to see what his ideology is, this paragraph would adaquately inform them of the reality of Kennedy's ideology.

Proposed Paragraph: Although appointed by a President who was both Republican and conservative, Kennedy’s tenure on the court has seen him take a moderate path. While some would point to his joining the majority in such decisions as Bush v. Gore as proof of his conservatism, others would point to cases like Lawrence v. Texas to assert Kennedy is a liberal. At the same time, he also frustrates constitutional law scholars by often foregoing conventional methods of explaining his holding and instead relying on vivid prose and unusual philosophy. Decisions in which Kennedy has mentioned European law has also equally frustrated political conservatives. All these factors considered, Kennedy will probably be remembered historically along with Sandra Day O’Connor as one of two swing voters in many 5-4 decisions during the Rehnquist court. 68.97.36.194 07:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

- I think that is a great paragraph and support its inclusion 132.216.9.84 23:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"From all accounts, Justice Kennedy is a big fan of the 1st amendment and of the internet (much to the consternation of house republicans)."

What's the evidence for the consternation of presumably the majority of House Republicans? Does the consternation extend merely to his enthusiasm for the Intenet, or also to the 1st amendment?

I find this dispute laughable. Kennedy is a solid conservative, and just because he does not vote with ScaliaThomas 100% of the time does not make him a "moderate." O'Connor, too, was a fairly solid conservative vote who happened to get extra attention when she voted with the liberals. I will have to insist that any characterizations of Kennedy as a moderate or liberal be cited properly.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit removal

I just performed this edit because the case is not clearly notable with respect to Justice Kennedy. The decision to distribute to the full Court may (hypothetically, at this point) be a repudiation of Justice Kennedy's decision, or (just the opposite) it may be an expedient move to settle the issue (because this case you be re-raised a half-dozen times otherwise). Let's get a little perspective on the decision before including it in a divisive way. --Scray (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Even if notable, we should wait on it. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not part of "The" Kennedy family

The unsourced "fact" that Anthony Kennedy is not related to "the" Kennedy family is the first sentence following the lead paragraph. Does anyone else see a NPOV issue there, and what is the relevence of that statement? Why would anyone assume that to be true in the first place?

I think the statement is both relevant and neutral - the lack of citation is a problem, though, obviously. Korny O'Near (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave it in. The complainer can find a cite if he wants. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that how the cite reliable sources policy generally works? I am not endorsing the questioner, just defending WP principles. --Scray (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right - "The complainer can find a cite" is not the right attitude to take. I just added a "citation needed" tag (I couldn't find a citation online). Korny O'Near (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Anthony McLeod Kennedy was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Retirement

An editor added a section to the article that states: "According to unnamed 'relatives and friends' contacted by the New York Daily News in July 2010, Kennedy does not intend to retire before the end of President Barack Obama's first term in January 2013." The addition is accurately sourced, but I don't think it belongs in the article. These unnamed friends and relatives of Kennedy are speculating about what Kennedy won't do, not even about he might do. There's no attribution to Kennedy himself. Even assuming Kennedy actually said something to his relatives and/or friends, it's simply not noteworthy for WP to report on this kind of hearsay, regardless of what the New York Daily News does. It's just too remote. I think the section should be removed unless there's a consensus to leave it in.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I had the same reaction, but decided to wait to see if anyone else objected. The section needs to either be expanded with well sourced proof that his retirement is a subject of mainstream discussion (and even then, I'm leery about the "unnamed friends"), or removed. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google News search and could find nothing but the New York Daily News and derivative sources (citing the NYDN) talking about Kennedy's retirement plans or non-plans.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of Kennedy's Tenure

This section needs major improvement, as it totally focuses on rightist criticism of Kennedy for not always voting with Scalia and co. I've added a little background and improved on the section, but we need more, and more balanced, sources cited.

I have added some citations proving Kennedy is a solid conservative vote, and changed the lede to reflect that. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have split this section up, as a whole paragraph was just about conservatives blasting Kennedy, and was more properly labeled "Conservative Criticism." The material on Kennedy's voting record and use of foreign law is better left in "Analysis."RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you have cherry picked specific, limited decisions to "prove" that Justice Kennedy is "conservative" reflects bias on your part and provides the unfamiliar reader with a skewed impression of his jurisprudence. 75.87.67.165 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)KAA

Add, this is relevant

Money Unlimited; How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision (May 21, 2012) New Yorker Kennedy plays a prominent role in the article

99.181.142.87 (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't relevant. Related, but not relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian?

User:Bbb23 Does not want to categorize Kennedy as a libertarian. I suggest that his importance in history is as a writer of Supreme Court decisions. If those decisions are libertarian, then it's fair enough to classify him a libertarian. -- And yes he is very much in Irish Catholic according to William E. Watson; Eugene J. Halus, Jr. (2014). Irish Americans: The History and Culture of a People. ABC-CLIO. p. 114. Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your source for the Irish part is fine. As you know, it was unsourced before. I have no objection to what you added about Kennedy's libertarian principles, but I don't think it belongs in the lead. As for re-adding the category American liberatrians, that is still unjustified. You can obtain as many sources as you like attesting to the libertarian principles in his jurisprudence, but that isn't the same as him or a reliable source saying that Kennedy is a libertarian. It's a leap from one to the other. You may think it has to be true, but that's just your opinion. We need a source that says it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 is mixing up 1) the intellectual category of being a libertarian equals announcing positions (in decisions) that qualify as libertarian, versus 2) being a member of the Libertarian Party. In my opinion, the category is designed to characterize people who take libertarian positions on public issues. Ron Paul was at one time a member of the Libertarian Party. His son Senator Rand Paul is not a member of that party, but takes libertarian policy positions. So I would categorize Rand Paul and Anthony Kennedy as "libertarian." A person who takes conservative positions is called "conservative"; A person takes liberal positions is called "liberal." But somehow Bbb23 rejects this line of thought. The only person he would characterize as conservative is a member of the Conservative party in New York State. Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. There is a separate category for members of the libertarian party. The American liberatarians category states: "American people who have categorically referred to themselves as libertarians; who adhere to any form of libertarian philosophy (including libertarian conservatives, libertarian socialists, etc.)." The media or commentators characterizing Kennedy's decisions as libertarian doesn't cut it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that the stated inclusion criteria seem to be (almost) entirely the undiscussed creation of one editor and the criteria are more restrictive than found in other subcategories of either Category:American people by political orientation or Category:Libertarians by nationality (or, for that matter, the supercategory Category:Libertarians, perhaps it is time to change those outlier criteria, or if necessary raise the issue at CFD. 2600:1006:B14D:A3C0:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)