Justice Anthony M Kennedy

Having devoted a good portion of my youth to a First Amendment defense of flag desecration (Ohio vs. Liska, 1970), I read with mixed emotions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas vs. Johnson. While I agree with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's labeling the outcome and, presumably, defendant Johnson's act, as "distasteful," I applaud his being compelled by the "pure command of the Constitution" to uphold the defendant's right of free expression. Having once been stripped of that right (the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision in my case)

The Supreme Court's showdown over whether states can aggressively enforce laws against illegal immigrants may have ended in a draw Wednesday. If so, Arizona's 3-year-old law that cracks down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers will stand. It could serve as a model for other states and cities that seek to adopt stricter enforcement measures. But if Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joins with his more liberal colleagues, as he did for part of Wednesday's argument, it could signal trouble in the future for other laws targeting illegal immigrants.

The Supreme Court's ruling last month giving corporations the right to spend freely on elections reflects a profound shift among the conservative justices on the importance of the 1st Amendment and the nature of corporations. In the 1970s, Justices William H. Rehnquist and Byron R. White said business corporations were "creatures of the law," capable of amassing wealth but due none of the rights of voters. By contrast, the court's current majority described a corporation as an "association of citizens" that deserves the same free-speech rights as an individual.

As viewers of "Law & Order" know, criminal suspects in custody must be advised of their right to remain silent. But after a Michigan man exercised that right by refusing to talk to police for nearly three hours, his interrogators asked him if he had asked God for forgiveness for shooting another man to death. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that his one-word answer — "Yes" — was admissible because he hadn't explicitly invoked his right to silence to stop the police questioning.

The implications of the Supreme Court decision that now creates protected "state sovereign immunity" are staggering (June 24). Future decisions predicated on this specious precedent could gut the federal Civil Rights Act, federal environmental regulations, age discrimination legislation or, frankly, any federal legislation passed that state governments find not to their liking. This, then, is the great legacy of the Reagan-Bush years and their Supreme Court appointees; that 140 years after the Civil War seemed to have resolved the issue of states' rights in favor of the United States, and not a collection of united states, the South actually did win the war. What is really breathtaking is the hypocrisy of conservative Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

The Supreme Court ruled today that disputes between investors who allege fraud and their brokers must be resolved by arbitration, not in court suits. By a 5-4 vote, the justices overturned a 1953 high court decision that permitted lawsuits under an anti-fraud provision of the Securities Act of 1933. In its history, the high court has reversed itself fewer than 200 times. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court, said the 1953 decision "has fallen far out of step with our current strong endorsement" of federal laws that favor arbitration.

Sonia Sotomayor became the 111th Supreme Court justice in the nation's history today, taking an oath to "administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. administered the oath in a ceremonial conference room at the Supreme Court before a small gathering of Sotomayor's family and friends, and a handful of White House aides who had worked on her confirmation. Roberts said the special swearing-in was arranged for a quiet morning so that Sotomayor could "begin her work as an associate justice without delay."

As viewers of "Law & Order" know, criminal suspects in custody must be advised of their right to remain silent. But after a Michigan man exercised that right by refusing to talk to police for nearly three hours, his interrogators asked him if he had asked God for forgiveness for shooting another man to death. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that his one-word answer — "Yes" — was admissible because he hadn't explicitly invoked his right to silence to stop the police questioning.

The Supreme Court said Thursday that a 15-year-old Florida girl may go ahead with plans to end her pregnancy as it lifted an order imposed two days ago by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that had blocked her abortion. The decision not to intervene in the case ended a brief but curious episode, one that raised intriguing questions about Kennedy, the newest justice on the court. The episode was unusual because the case--involving a teen-ager identified only as T. W. and a Florida law regulating abortions for minors--is still pending in the state court.

Five years ago, when John G. Roberts Jr. became the Supreme Court's chief justice, he described the job as though he would be a minor functionary, more like an umpire behind the plate than the star of the game. He also said he favored minimal and narrow decisions, rather than broad but divisive rulings that would abruptly change the law. But in recent weeks, Roberts has shown that when he has the support of moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he is willing to move boldly on behalf of conservative causes.

The Supreme Court's ruling last month giving corporations the right to spend freely on elections reflects a profound shift among the conservative justices on the importance of the 1st Amendment and the nature of corporations. In the 1970s, Justices William H. Rehnquist and Byron R. White said business corporations were "creatures of the law," capable of amassing wealth but due none of the rights of voters. By contrast, the court's current majority described a corporation as an "association of citizens" that deserves the same free-speech rights as an individual.

Five years ago, when John G. Roberts Jr. became the Supreme Court's chief justice, he described the job as though he would be a minor functionary, more like an umpire behind the plate than the star of the game. He also said he favored minimal and narrow decisions, rather than broad but divisive rulings that would abruptly change the law. But in recent weeks, Roberts has shown that when he has the support of moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he is willing to move boldly on behalf of conservative causes.

Sonia Sotomayor became the 111th Supreme Court justice in the nation's history today, taking an oath to "administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. administered the oath in a ceremonial conference room at the Supreme Court before a small gathering of Sotomayor's family and friends, and a handful of White House aides who had worked on her confirmation. Roberts said the special swearing-in was arranged for a quiet morning so that Sotomayor could "begin her work as an associate justice without delay."

The implications of the Supreme Court decision that now creates protected "state sovereign immunity" are staggering (June 24). Future decisions predicated on this specious precedent could gut the federal Civil Rights Act, federal environmental regulations, age discrimination legislation or, frankly, any federal legislation passed that state governments find not to their liking. This, then, is the great legacy of the Reagan-Bush years and their Supreme Court appointees; that 140 years after the Civil War seemed to have resolved the issue of states' rights in favor of the United States, and not a collection of united states, the South actually did win the war. What is really breathtaking is the hypocrisy of conservative Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Having devoted a good portion of my youth to a First Amendment defense of flag desecration (Ohio vs. Liska, 1970), I read with mixed emotions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas vs. Johnson. While I agree with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's labeling the outcome and, presumably, defendant Johnson's act, as "distasteful," I applaud his being compelled by the "pure command of the Constitution" to uphold the defendant's right of free expression. Having once been stripped of that right (the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision in my case)

The Supreme Court said Thursday that a 15-year-old Florida girl may go ahead with plans to end her pregnancy as it lifted an order imposed two days ago by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that had blocked her abortion. The decision not to intervene in the case ended a brief but curious episode, one that raised intriguing questions about Kennedy, the newest justice on the court. The episode was unusual because the case--involving a teen-ager identified only as T. W. and a Florida law regulating abortions for minors--is still pending in the state court.

These are excerpts from the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Missouri abortion case: Privacy Rights (From Charles Fried, representing the Justice Department.) Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Today the United States asks this court to reconsider and overrule its decision in Roe vs. Wade. At the outset, I would like to make quite clear how limited that submission is. First, we are not asking the court to unravel the fabric of unenumerated and privacy rights which this court has woven in cases like Meyer and Pierce and Moore and Griswold.

These are excerpts from the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Missouri abortion case: Rights of Unborn (From Missouri Atty. Gen. William Webster.) This case represents a direct appeal that involves a 1986 Missouri statute defining the rights of the unborn and regulating abortion in Missouri. Missouri's appeal involves three basic areas for this court's review: the first, the constitutional boundaries on the limitations of public funding; the second, the effect of and the facial constitutionality of legislation declaring that life begins at conception, and third, the ability of a state to require a physician to perform tests and to make and record findings when determining viability.

The Supreme Court ruled today that disputes between investors who allege fraud and their brokers must be resolved by arbitration, not in court suits. By a 5-4 vote, the justices overturned a 1953 high court decision that permitted lawsuits under an anti-fraud provision of the Securities Act of 1933. In its history, the high court has reversed itself fewer than 200 times. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court, said the 1953 decision "has fallen far out of step with our current strong endorsement" of federal laws that favor arbitration.

These are excerpts from the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Missouri abortion case: Rights of Unborn (From Missouri Atty. Gen. William Webster.) This case represents a direct appeal that involves a 1986 Missouri statute defining the rights of the unborn and regulating abortion in Missouri. Missouri's appeal involves three basic areas for this court's review: the first, the constitutional boundaries on the limitations of public funding; the second, the effect of and the facial constitutionality of legislation declaring that life begins at conception, and third, the ability of a state to require a physician to perform tests and to make and record findings when determining viability.