It would be interesting to see his financial statements since O’Connor left the court and how much more he has been getting in speaking fees from the left-wing law schools.
I thought the brain-damaged kennedy was a senator; maybe they operated on the wrong one.
appointed by president ronald reagan.
i don’t know.
it seems that democrat justices stay democrat or even socialist,
but republican justices, some become democrat or even socialist.
‘tis odd.
It certainly has been interesting that certain GOP nominees have quickly adapted to the ways of DC. It is also a very large danger to representative government. Since the 1970s the public has been electing GOP presidents in large part to overturn Roe v. Wade, but there it sits.
And it is not like the public is asking to overturn something that is clearly in the constitution like say the second ammendment. They want over turned some from the shaddow of the constitutin if you believe it is there at all.
When the public fails to get their way election after election is it any wonder they become disallusioned with government and even the electoral process?
I think Reagan’s Kennedy is primarily motivated by getting invitations from the socialists in Washington who have the fancy parties and dinners. Too bad Reagan didn’t do his homework on that former Gerald R. Ford booster from Sacramento.
Politicized instead of Constitutionalized. (sumpthin like that)
Justices who are not ideologues like O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy always turn left once on the court, probably due to influence from leftist ideologues already on the court.
This is because non-ideologues tend to rule by emotion rather than principle (ruling by principle is often harsh and unfair), and leftist arguments always appeal to the emotion.
But make no mistake - the liberals on the court are NOT ruling by emotion, they are ruling by their own leftist principles.
What does the Constitution say about removing a justice? How have other justices been removed in the past? Didn't FDR threaten to add more judges and dilute the votes of existing judges if he didn't get what he wanted in decisions?
Nobody
gets there without being complicit with the globalists . . .
or if they do . . . they are quickl co-opted . . . if they choose to live.
Notice that it has been Kennedy that has written the majority opinion in the recent Gitmo & alien status cases. I suspect this is Justice Stevens way of bribing Kennedy to vote with him and the other liberals on the court. (If the chief justice, Roberts, is in the majority, he assigns the person to write the opinion. If the CJ is not in the majority, the senior associate justice in the majority, Stevens in this case, assigns the person the write the opinion.) So Stevens button holes Kennedy and says, “if you vote with us I’ll let you write the opinion. Yes, you can show the world your legal brilliance on one of the most important issues of our time. You can be remembered as a great justice. Vote with the me and the other liberals.” And Kennedy, oblivious to Stevens appeals to his vanity says, “Gee thanks, John, I’ll do it.”
No, it is simpler than that. He is anti-American and wants to see the country destroyed.
Why does he want the country destroyed? Again simple, he views the wreckage as an opportunity for dictatorship - by the judges.
Judges have shown contempt for the law; why then should we respect them and their “decisions”?
You don’t have to be a Weatherman to see which way the wind blows.
Morally-weak sisters like Kennedy and O'Connor get a feeling of empowerment from being the perpetual swing vote. In their own minds, it's their ONE vote that can change the course of the country for good or evil......never mind the count of the other votes on either side.
Unfortunately for the country, their "one" swing vote was and is usually on the side of evil.
Leni
And he's teaching others the same thing through his class at McGeorge. Soon we will have some of his students/disciples in state and appellate courts applying the same approach.