Anthony Kennedy

himself with conservatives in the Citizens United case in two and joining the majority in handing George W. Bush a presidential victory in the two thousand election. Kennedy recently sat down with Carlisle Group co founder David Rubinstein for an interview recorded at the University of Virginia Law School. They spoke on David Rubinstein's Bloomberg television program Peer to Peer Conversations.

Let's talk about some of the opinions that you're very well known for, uh somewhere five or four somewhere not um, But let me talk about, for example, on gay lesbian rights. UM, you are been a strong advocate that everybody should be treated equally and that there should be no discrimination and in fact, you authored the opinion that allowed gay marriage to occur. Is that something that surprised your conservative let's say, supporters, And this is something you're very proud of having written

that opinion. In a sense, it surprised me. What surprised you the the the reaction or not your decision. Well, you know, because my religious beliefs these are That's one of the reasons I wrote it. It. It seemed to me that I couldn't hide and the nature of injustice

as you can't see it in your own time. And uh, as we thought about this, and I thought about it more and more, it seemed to me that just wrong under the Constitution to say that over a hundred thousand adopted children of gay parents could not have their parents mary did. I just thought that this was this was wrong. But it took and I struggled with it and wrote the case over a weekend, and that's the way I came out. But as I say, you, you, you, as

you write the reasons either compel themselves or not. I tell judges, I tell young judges, old judges, your duty in every case is to ask why are you doing what you're about to do? What are the reasons, and even if you've done it a hundred times, you have to ask what those reasons are again and see if they are still valid. That's what you must do is introspectively. You take an oath that you're going to listen to each side, and if you make up your mind in advance,

you're not following that. So Um and abortion rights, many people who were your supporters, generally of your judicial philosophy were disappointed. I think it's fair to say that you were not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, while you may have narrowed it to some extent, you never voted to overturn it. Um. What was your thinking on that particular area. Well, our thinking is the set forth in the opinions. We give reasons for what we do.

We don't go around later explaining it is. It's in the opinion, and we hope, we hope that the opinion is convincing. Now, one of your famous five to four decisions is Citizens United, which you upheld the right of corporations to basically make political contributions. Any second thoughts about that decision, ever, I again, the decision stands to answer our stuffs. Of course, all of us are concerned with

money in politics. The government of the United States in that case argued before the Supreme Court, we're in the court and the podium is down there. The attorney for the Government of the United States argued that, uh, and if there was an upcoming political campaign, I forget that. Uh, maybe six weeks h and a book was being published or a movie being produced and it was critical of a candidate, that you could stop publication. It was unbelievable. Uh,

this is the first amendment right now. It's true that there's a problem of money in politics, but I think we just have to address it some other way. And notice that the press was exempt, so the major newspapers could print what they want, but you couldn't have a

book or a movie the other ways. It's now The result was, as you know, uh, that money flows into these campaigns, and it seems to me we have to think about it, but that the voters are the ones that if they see money coming in from the campaign for wrong source, that they should be disclosure and they can vote against the candidate if they don't like it. So when you were in the court the last number

of years, after Justice O'Connor retired. You were basically seeing rightly or wrongly as the swing vote with that put undue pressure on you and making decisions because you were the Prince will be the person who could make the court go one way or the other. Well, I think every one of the justices feels pressure in every in every case, Yes, it was. It was a little bit

a little bit harder and swing vote. I said, Uh, the swing vote has this um uh symbolism uh of of this swinging back and forth in space, And I say the cases swing I don't. I'm consisted about. Now you carry the Constitution with you everywhere you go, is that right? Yeah? I have it in your view. Um, when you carry the Constitution obviously know it very well.

What do you think about the theory that you should look at the intent of the drafters of the Constitution about what you should decide in a case this This is one of the hardest questions in constitutional law and that we have to to wrestle with. Look at that this is a written document that the framers wanted handed down. You can't just ignore what the words are. On the other hand, I don't think Jefferson, you're a great Jeffersonian scholar. UH and and and and and Medisine spent a lot

of time writing dictionaries, and they use spacious language. Life, liberty, property. If they had known all its specifics of a jet society, they would have written down. They didn't do that in it. And these words have to have meaning over time, UM and Jefferson. Uh. People sometimes give me declaration of independent is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. That's declaration of independent life, liberty property is what Madison put in the fifth Modment UH.

And it's also in the fourteen UM. And happiness was was interesting U. Happiness of the Greek board is you delia And they even in the Greek times there they had two meanings UH. And one was happiness that you're have material possessions. The other is you're happy because you have contributed to civic life and this enhances your own dignity. And Jefferson used it in this second sense. The happiness UH was to give to your community and the result

was enriching to you. You've shoved in the corp for thirty years, You've written enormous number of opinions. You're quite respected throughout the legal committee. But what would you like your legacy to be? I hope that people would look at the court and realize that not only is it possible, but necessary for a democracy to have a civil, rational, thoughtful, decent discussion so that we can plan our own destiny. Um. We are are in time with an uncivil disco. Aristotle,

UM and Plato both gave a low grade to democracy. Um. And I went back to two summers ago and read um. Uh. We read Plato and Aristotle is that a common thing? That justice is due? Going back and reading Plato and I I wanted to do it because I was concerned. And my interpretation was that Aristotle thought democracy should be given in a low grade because it did not have the capacity to mature. And our duty, our destiny, is

to prove him wrong. Look at the rest of the world is looking at us to see what democracy means, what freedom means. And Uh, they see this hostile, fractious discourse, and we're not making the case for democrac At the end, David, of the last century, the last quarter, last twenty five years of the last century was the birth of democracy.

Democracy has come in all over the world. Um. The first part of this century, we're seeing the death of democracies, and in part is because of the example that we're not setting. Aristotle. Um said that in a civil discussion, UH, there has to be UH respect, moderation, thought, and he said the participants and UH discussion in the democratic society,

UM must have NIA, which means kindness and respect. I disagree with you and proposition X, but I respect you immensely and we must restore that to our public discourse. What would you like the American people to most know about the United States Supreme Court? That it is dedicated to finding what the law is, and the law has a moral foundation. The is interested in truth. Truth is often the facts. Was the light red? Was the light green? And you begin there And this isn't the partisan exercise.

We want to show that facts count and that facts are found in a thoughtful, rational, respectful way. And after that we know what principles have to come from the facts. And those principles are are the principles of the Constitution and the principles of freedom or heritage. The work of freedom is never done