The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Land of the Free Because Of The Brave
"The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims."
For three decades, Anthony Kennedy was America's moral arbiter. He alone got to decide what was legal and what was illegal. Abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, and so on. In Dobbs, the dissenters waxed nostalgia about Justice Kennedy, along with Justices O'Connor and Souter, as "judges of wisdom."
In 303 Creative, Justice Sotomayor's dissent expressed a similar yearning for the Hercules's of the day.
Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women's rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims. Now the Court faces a similar test.
No doubt, the "brave Justices" include Justice Kennedy, who single-handedly rewrote the law concerning gays and lesbians in America: Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell. In hindsight, Obergefell may seem like a foregone conclusion, but the three-decade trip from Bowers to Obergefell was anything but certain.
Still, I am not sure that the assignment of bravery is correct. Justice Kennedy was always extolled in elite circles for his progressive jurisprudence, while Justice Scalia and the dissenters were lambasted as bigots. Those dynamics were true a decade ago, but are even more stark now. Indeed, I think the bravest act is to rule against the sentiments of elite opinion. The six members of the majority did so with fearlessness.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I consider Justice Kennedy to be a traitor, not a hero — a traitor to all the beliefs and principles he purported to believe when Ronald Reagan nominated him.
Robert Bork had the courage to state what he believed — Anthony Kennedy was a lying schmuck who managed to fly in under the radar. Or maybe the siren call of the Georgetown cocktail circuit was too strong — whatever…
Abortion, sodomy, gay marriage and sex changing are things which — in a democratic society — the people discuss and vote on. Not have it imposed on by a black-robed fascist.
John Adams’ father-in-law was a Puritan Minister, he also quite devout — I can’t imagine him ever believing that the document he helped author could (let alone would) be used to impose any of this stuff.
No, Kennedy belongs in the 9th Circle of Hell.
And chanting "We're Here, We're Queer, "We're Coming for the Children" isn't exactly the sort of thing that builds "tolerance" and "acceptance." Even if it was done in black humor, the optics on that aren't good.
This is not going to end well. Thank you, Anthony Kennedy...
Justice Kennedy beget Justice Kavanaugh…lol.
Exactly. Regardless of what the left claims about "love" and "family," they aren't able to overcome the fact that "marriage" between two men is about anal sodomy. It's that simple.
You spend far more time thinking about anal sodomy than any normal human being.
He is merely expressing the views this faux libertarian blog cultivates.
Is marriage between a man and woman only about vaginal sex to you?
No, it's about creating a structure proper to raising a family.
"structure proper to raising a family"
I infer that your opinion is that a family led by two women or two men is a family structure not proper. Do you believe that to be objectively or empirically true? How about family structures which don't raise families? Are childless couples, either hetero or otherwise, improper?
Abortion, sodomy, gay marriage and sex changing are things which — in a democratic society — the people discuss and vote on. Not have it imposed on by a black-robed fascist.
And yet I am sure that in other cases you would whine about the tyranny of the majority. The point of a constitutional democracy is that the majority does not rule in all cases. Evidently our "disgust" reaction is dialled up to 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgust#Morality
Telling a gay man he can't insert his HIV infected member into another man's rear is not "tyranny."
Ok, how about married hetero couples engaging in "alternative" sexual acts. Would it be "tyranny", either literal or metaphorical, to forbid these acts among married heteros? If not, where do we stop? Would outlawing onanism by tyrannical? What if your generator won't start?
I guess what I'm asking you is, how strictly can we as a society regulate sexual activity between and among consenting adults without being tyrannical? What laws would you propose other than forbidding anal sex between or among men?
You've confused a constitutional democracy with a constitutional republic.
A democracy does not provide a defense against the majority but a republic does.
We use democracy and republic interchangeably.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/
Which belief or principle do you think he purported to believe that he betrayed? What is your basis for claiming that he purported to believe that?
He hasn't the faintest idea. He just starts typing.
As you well know.
while Justice Scalia and the dissenters were lambasted as bigots.
Well yes. If the shoe fits...
Bigot == truthteller in today's world.
“As Justices of the Supreme Court, we have a sacred duty to check our personal feelings at the door,” [Justice Scalia] told the Fox News Channel. “In my case, that means putting aside my longstanding and profound fear of homosexuals.”
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scalia-says-marriage-views-not-affected-by-lifelong-fear-of-gays
The Volokh Conspiracy: Official "Legal" Blog Of Conservative Bigots
If any Conspirators wish to try to deny this, they are welcome to try.
Carry on, bigots.
Scalia went to far, for sure...but today's progressives just want to replace one form of bigotry with another.
It's why many conservative gays have been abandoning the pride movement. Even Glen Greenwald (...not clearly on either "side" at the moment...) recently pointed out how the left have become the bullies on these issues.
Even Glen Greenwald
My dude...
Yeah, I suppose the whole “Even XYZ!” framing has been overdone…but I think the substance of my point remains fair.
Glenn Greenwald is a committed an anti-liberal as there is. His positions revolve entirely around that. Citing him for any criticism of the left is like citing George Wallace’s views on the civil rights movement.
You are welcome to your opinion as to the left's bullying; there are absolutely those of that bent around. But relying on Greenwald's authority is not a good way to support your opinion.
You seem reluctant to express your right-wing bigotry without reservation or defensiveness.
Coward.
LOL, the curse of being a moderate is to always have one's fortitude questioned...
It's what always happened to Justice Kennedy, whom I greatly respect (not that I'm in his league, of course).
Would the big social wedge cases coming down right now have been ruled the other other way if Kennedy or O' Connor was still on the Court? I don’t think so….
Elite circles? You mean like Harlan Crow and the Court's other wealthy benefactors?
Yeah, wouldn't it be brave if Thomas and Alito ruled against the interests of Crow and the federalist society? They would be speaking their minds and risking all the free trips, gifts, scholarships for relatives, etc. Putting your income stream on the line for something you believe in is brave. Continuously being a predictable far right conservative to please the wealthy benefactors to obtain more extravagant gifts is cowardice. They'll never be as brave as the people out there who brought those gay rights cases to the court, risking their careers, reputation, and family relationships to stand up for something they believe in and try to make a more inclusive and accepting society.
Single-handedly? Where are those decisions with eight justices dissenting? And with the majority of the country rejecting every such rewriting until Kennedy's decision transformed public opinion?
Many hands make light work, and also SCOTUS decisions.
This was my thought also. Much as cats have nine lives, so it seems Kennedy had nine votes.
As Brennan said, you only have to count to five.
Well, Kennedy was the fulcrum of sorts -- for a while, the only justice who seemed to genuinely care about BOTH gays AND traditionalists, and tried to fashion a path of genuine tolerance and pluralism for all.
I like the fact that he wrote both Obergefell and (the controlling portion of) Masterpiece.
Similarly, Gorsuch wrote both Bostock and 303 Creative -- following a similar path of actual tolerance and pluralism.
Our remaining disaffected right-wingers try to hide behind euphemisms such as "traditionalists."
Better Americans reject that political correctness and call a bigot a bigot.
Your appeasement of bigots dooms your conservative political preferences, Cheerio. As it should.
True bigotry is being intolerant or hateful of *anyone* who's not imposing their views on anyone else -- whether they're gays, tradwives, or anything in between.
Live and let live; pluralism or bust!
Correct. If Kennedy was still on the court today, say instead of Kavanaugh, it would be clear that he is not a sole justice capable of changing all the laws. There'd still be a conservative majority even when Kennedy wanted to "swing left". But at least it would have avoided the appointment of one of the three clowns appointed by that 2x impeached and indicted one-term former president.
I think the bravest act is to rule against the sentiments of elite opinion. The six members of the majority did so with fearlessness.
Horseshit.
It takes no courage to vote the way your gang wants you to vote.
"Elite opinion" isn't going to harm them. But failing to vote with their sponsors might cost them those very nice vacations.
That’s why I think Kennedy gets a bad rap by many conservatives…the real courage is being willing to piss off either side, which he seemed to do.
Roberts also gets called a squish by conservatives, but again, it’s not like he gets credit from the left for being (somewhat) moderate…
Uh, isn’t she very clearly talking about the Warren court in the time of the civil rights movement?
Good luck riding that "the bigots are the brave ones" train to your predictable destination, clingers. That trip is no better than the "superstition is going to make a huge comeback" tour for which most conservatives have purchased tickets.
Better Americans will continue to shape our national progress against the wishes, efforts, and whining of the Volokh Conspiracy and its carefully cultivated audience of disaffected, obsolete, roundly bigoted culture war casualties.
Fortunately, the wise yet non-ideological "normies" in the middle seem to reject left-wing bigotry just as much as right-wing bigotry.
Anthony Kennedy was a decent justice regarding equal treatment of gays and lesbians. But I hope he burns in hell for Bush v. Gore.
If Bush II had not been anointed as president, there would have been no Iraq war, no John Roberts and Sam Alito on SCOTUS, and Osama bin Laden would have met his fate years earlier than he did. (I realize that Roberts and Alito were second term appointees, but if there had been no first term, there likely would have been no later term.)
Re: “Brave” justices. Our local library in Bethesda, Maryland, is named for Connie Morella, a Republican who represented our Congressional district for many years. It would be near impossible for a Republican to be elected today. The plaque in the library omits mention of her party affiliation. It honors her as one who thought and acted “independently.” Translated in diehard progressive Montgomery County, that means a Republican who voted with Democrats. A Democrat who votes with Republicans would not be considered independent nor have one’s name bestowed on any public building.