At the Aspen Institute Washington's office Tuesday night, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy looked out at the audience and said he was “astonished" by public leaders who "use filthy words" and the lack of "respectful discourse" heard on public airways.
(Aren't we all, Justice Kennedy? The name of the chief bad mouth was never uttered in the session nor were any other names, not associated with cases.)
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C., Oct. 21, 2025/By Patricia Leslie
Appearing before a "sold out" crowd at the Klein Book Series sponsored by Susan and John Klein, both in attendance, Justice Kennedy came to promote his new book, Life, Law & Liberty, which contains, upon first hearing, more humor than one might suspect.
The interviewer, his former law clerk and Fox News Media's General Counsel, Kate Meeks threw him softball questions, mostly about his growing up years allowing Justice Kennedy to tell about some funny parts.
Just before he took a tax exam he and a buddy took their tax books to a baseball game (the last one Ted Williams played!) to study... (to what?) and lo and behold, the sound of a familiar voice, that of their tax professor, piped up behind them. For years, this professor (who later became the U.S. Solicitor General) kidded Mr. Kennedy about the encounter.
In these forums, the best always comes last and Tuesday evening's session was no exception, with questions from the audience. (Written questions were accepted beforehand.)
Nothing but polite questions came from the genteel group, most questions devoted to past Supreme Court decisions with no justice names included. (Sigh)
And if you ever wondered if the justices are affected by public opinion, wonder no more since Justice Kennedy cited public opinion at least twice in the hourlong session.
When asked about Citizens v. United, Justice Kennedy said (paraphrasing) if you don't like it, then change it! It's up to the voters to get down and effect change at the ballot box! Please!
Vote for the other candidate who's not receiving Big Money, he said.
That decision was 5-4 and he wrote the majority opinion, that Congress cannot prohibit corporations from giving money to campaigns.
But, vast amounts of money going into campaigns is very troubling, he said. Billionaires who don't even live in the state pour money into campaigns (omitting the name of Elon Musk and his disastrous results in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race).
Kennedy went on: If we say corporations can't give money, the New York Times is a corporation. Are they to be limited? What about a chamber of commerce in a small town? A bakery shop?
Are we going to have limits on big corporations v. small ones?
Voters can demand disclosure. If voters are unhappy with money going to one candidate, they can vote for the other candidate, he said.
About the 1989 flag burning case when the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of freedom of speech by the flag burner, it was a decision, Justice Kennedy said, which the public quickly grew to accept, after initial criticism and rebukes from 80 U.S. Senators. (Editor's note: One can hazard a guess on the case outcome by today's Supreme Court.)
In Bush v. Gore: "We had 48 hours, I think to write the opinion," and seven justices agreed to take the case. He was unsure a couple of times whether it was seven or six justices, but they agreed there was a Constitutional violation.
"The question was: What should be the remedy?"
Gore wanted a recount of the votes only in the districts that he lost and "we said, no you can't do that. He wanted to extend the time for more argument and we said no.
"It seems to me, the opinion was quite right," citing surveys that Bush "would have won, but I'm not sure those were correct."
He said the framers of the U.S. promised (in the Preamble to the U.S. Declaration of Independence) that "'all men are created equal'" with "certain unalienable Rights" which include "the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but "judges cannot enforce happiness."
He holds a "fundamental concern about human dignity," not found in the Constitution. "Freedom means respect for each person," he said.
Kennedy frequently referenced President Ronald Reagan who nominated him to the Ninth Circuit for the U.S. Court of Appeals and later, the U.S. Supreme Court, Kennedy, quite adept at mimicking his old boss.
Kennedy got to know Reagan when Reagan was California's governor, and Kennedy performed legal work for him.
As for moving back to the East Coast for the Supreme Court,
"aw, shucks," Kennedy seemed to say: He and Mrs. Kennedy were not so fond of moving back East from California and they didn't really know anyone, he told Reagan.
"'Well, you know me,'" Kennedy quoted Reagan in his drawl.
"What?" said Kennedy to audience laughter: "Was I supposed to go and have lunch with him every day?"
Reagan "would be most concerned about the state of our civic discourse, and he would be a wonderful person to try to restore civility that we need so badly." (Since Reagan speaks from the grave about tariffs, will someone bring up his remarks, please, about civility?)
Kennedy's guidance for new members of the Supreme Court: "The cases are much harder and much more difficult than you think when you sit down to write them."
One questioner asked if it's become "a meaningless ritual when you take the oath of office and the words don't mean anything?"
Kennedy praised the questioner's wording framing the question and answered that every public official has the duty to ensure that what he or she is doing is consistent with the Constitution.
The most important qualities for a judge are "you must be honest with yourself. You must ask yourself every day what is it that is making me do this? Is there some hidden motive, some bias that I have that I can't see?
"All of us have to ask this in our lives every day. Judges have a sworn duty to ask this question."
Kennedy's "greatest job in the world is a U.S. District Judge. He or she is all by himself or herself. That single judge gets to see real people, jurors, witnesses."
He emphasized that the Constitution doesn't just apply to cases that come before the Supreme Court: It applies even more importantly to those that don't come to the Court.
"The Constitution requires equal treatment for all."
He said, if our democracy is going to survive, we must have an informed electorate. Our citizens must take an interest in current affairs, they must participate, and if they don't like what they see, they can show it at the ballot box.
Internet usage is mostly only communicating with those who agree with you, he said.
Answering another question from the audience, he said, the Supreme Court encounters "difficulties" with so many emergency decisions.
"We would get phone calls in the middle of the night - death cases - these are quite complex and it does seem to me that we have to find ways so the courts have more time.
"The district courts sometimes have just a couple of hours. We usually just stay it. In some instances, some ongoing wrongs continue."
A reception followed.
patricialesli@gmail.com
Posts
