Columns General story Law & Court LGBT, race and religion Mark Silk: Spiritual Politics Opinion

The country will miss Justice Kennedy

Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy testifies before a House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services hearing to review the FY 2016 budget request of the Supreme Court of the United States, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, March 23, 2015. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Anthony Kennedy was far from the best writer on the Supreme Court and far from the best legal mind. He rarely turned a memorable phrase and the legal standards he articulated were little more than a guide for how he himself would rule on the next relevant case.

But he brought a sense of decency and respect to the Court’s decision-making that will be sorely missed. In a judiciary nearly as polarized as the country itself, he was given to acknowledging that there could be justice on both sides of a contentious issue. At a time when left and right want total victory based on simple rules, his approach was to try to find common ground—particularly when it came to cases involving religion.

Take Hobby Lobby, the 2014 case that recognized that closely held for-profit companies enjoy a right of religious free-exercise—in this case to refuse to provide certain contraceptive coverage to female employees under the Affordable Care Act. Kennedy signed on with the majority, but wrote a separate concurrence in which he asserted the state’s right to insure that contraceptive services be available.

“There are many medical conditions for which pregnancy is contraindicated,” he wrote. “It is important to confirm that a premise of the Court’s opinion is its assumption that the HHS regulation here at issue furthers a legitimate and compelling interest in the health of female employees.”

He went on to declare his support for the Obama Administration’s disputed approach to allowing an exemption for religious non-profits while guaranteeing the coverage: “In these cases the means to reconcile those two priorities are at hand in the existing accommodation the Government has designed, identified, and used for circumstances closely parallel to those presented here.”

This term’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision sums up Kennedy’s “both-and” approach. Jack Phillips, the owner of the bakeshop, prevailed not because his religious right to withhold services trumped Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, but because the Colorado civil rights commission had failed to respect that right.

Yes, wrote Kennedy in his final opinion for the Court, “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” But, he continued, “it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

It is telling that, in the immediate aftermath of the decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals used it to uphold the constitutionality of civil rights measures that protect LGBTQ Americans.

Masterpiece Cakeshop notwithstanding, Kennedy had a tendency to defer overmuch to government authority, as manifested in his readiness to permit a wide range of religious establishments, from public school vouchers to Ten Commandments displays to legislative chaplains’ prayers. In Trump v. Hawaii, he joined the majority in allowing President Trump’s travel ban despite abundant evidence that it was directed against Muslims and thus violated the Establishment Clause.

Unsurprisingly, he added a brief concurrence that sought common ground, sounding a warning to the country’s Chief Executive even in granting him free rein.

Indeed, the very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise.

The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and promises the free exercise of religion. From these safeguards, and from the guarantee of freedom of speech, it follows there is freedom of belief and expression. It is an urgent necessity that officials adhere to these constitutional guarantees and mandates in all their actions, even in the sphere of foreign affairs. An anxious world must know that our Government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so that freedom extends outward, and lasts.

These, Kennedy’s final words as a Supreme Court justice, are certain to fall on deaf presidential ears. His last will and testament to the American people, they seem woefully inadequate to the present moment.

About the author

Mark Silk

Mark Silk is Professor of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College and director of the college's Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life. He is a Contributing Editor of the Religion News Service

Add Comment

Click here to post a comment

  • Kennedy has served a long run in a very honorable national post. I wish him well in retirement.

    (But I am soooooo glad he’s finally outta there. With his help, this nation is in real trouble!)

  • Same. I don’t think he completely understood the can of worms he was opening up.

    You can never go wrong by overestimating people’s capacity for spite, greed and overreach. The very young and the very old tend to forget.

  • You can never go wrong by overestimating people’s capacity for spite, greed and overreach.

    WOW, she described the two of you in a nutshell!

  • Ha ha. But it wasn’t people of faith to whom he addressed his scolding in his less than dramatic LGBT swan song.

  • Actually you have no idea that is true. very well may have been folks who just don’t share your brand of faith. We also now know, after the fact, that the lawyers for the baker misled to the Supreme Court. The supposed anti-religious quotes were not made during the Commission’s deliberation of the baker’s case as the justices were led to believe. They were very generic statements made sometime after the case had been decided by the Commission.

  • He did seem rather shocked that Obergefell led to disagreements.

    “Can’t we all just get along?”


  • Be that as it may be, it doesn’t matter. It was only a pretext for not deciding the case on the merits.

    While Kennedy was willing to extend ssm itself because he didn’t want gay people to be “lonely” or somesuch, he was never going to sign off on those who religiously objected being targeted, harassed and sued into bankruptcy. Being at least a nominal Catholic himself, he understood where they were coming from. He put a gentle warning to that effect in Obergefell which was of course ignored, and.a much stronger one in Masterpiece which evidently STILL didn’t get through. But he still valued his legacy as the patron saint of gay rights enough not to be the one to administer the smack down. He intentionally left that to those whom he knew would be his successors.

    Thus the ultimate outcome will be precisely that which I predicted right here in 2015 — that the SCOTUS would make ssm available but allow religious objectors to have nothing to do with it if that is their wish.

    And as I also said at the time, that should be enough to satisfy most reasonable people — but unfortunately many here are not reasonable people.

  • Yes, magnanimous victors rarely provoke a reaction.

    Nutjobs like the so-called Civil Rights Commission in Colorado do the work of opponents of LBGT rights for them.

  • Too bad that polls don’t back you up! 61% of the nation at large do not believe that LGBTQ folks should be discriminated against by businesses, no matter who owns or runs it.

  • What exactly did the public’s opinion about LGBT discrimination even remotely have to do with what I just said?

    And just for the record, the 2016 election rather soured me on such polls for the foreseeable future.

    Methinks you don’t trust such polls overmuch either, or your camp wouldn’t be so frantic for a SCOTUS decision on the subject.

  • I can’t force you to understand. Read your last two paragraphs and read my comment to maybe understand.

  • Perhaps that the supposedly 61% who oppose discrimination is inconsistent with reasonable people being satisfied with the likely outcome? If so…not really. Most of the states opposed ssm being improperly forced upon them by the feds but that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be satisfied with living with it as long as their religious freedom to not be involved in it is protected. It’s a matter of everyone getting what is most important to them.

  • However, things have changed since prior to Obergefell, today a majority of the people of the US also support SSM

  • Even if true, that has nothing to do with it. We are talking religious freedom, not majorities. And it was obvious from the Masterpiece opinion that Kennedy was utterly disheartened by the refusal of the LGBT to take their marriage certificates and their health insurance and government benefits and all the other perks they said they wanted and simply go home and enjoy their lives and leave the objectors in peace.

    I was not particularly disheartened by it, however, because I fully expected the resentment and spite to tootle right along and even increase, which it has. I have few illusions about human nature.

  • That’s something that you appear to see, as if an apparition, between the lines of his opinion. I see no such disheartened state of mind. One, he is aware that we don’t have much beyond the right to marry. There is no job security, no public accommodation security, no guarantee of any kind of insurance, etc. And he expressed that LGBTQ folks shouldn’t face discrimination. The opinion requires approaching religious beliefs with neutrality when considering discrimination, which the baker’s lawyers misrepresented to the court as not having occurred.

  • “And he expressed that LGBTQ folks shouldn’t face discrimination.” And I agree with that in general, and so does most everyone else. What we’re talking about here is a narrow set of circumstances that directly impinge upon 1st Amendment freedoms which are the very reason for our nation’s existence, as well as Kennedy’s own guiding light — and if he was unwilling to trash those bedrock principles for access to contraception (Hobby Lobby) he certainly was not going to do it over someone’s hurt feelings about a cake.

    Make no mistake that Kennedy knows exactly what his departure at this particular time means, and how these intentionally deferred cases are going to come out eventually. Masterpiece was his last warning to all of you whom he helped as far as his scruples would allow him to: don’t overplay your hand.

  • But who is praying for the souls forced into this sick world and promptly abandoned?
    Why place more value on embryos and the fetus when those beyond the womb who struggle to exist in a world struggling to attain theocratic authoritarianism and oligarchy?
    Well, wait a minute… theocracies and oligarchies DO require a docile subservient lower caste to support their existence. Never mind.

  • He should have left a long time ago. His opinion of homosexual “marriage” and refusal to dismantle Roe are just 2 reasons he should have been fired.

  • How does one prove they are homosxual in public? Why should a person’s sexual preferences matter in public?

  • We have to pray for all souls and specific souls. And we have to do things as well, mainly for the people that God puts closest in our lives, like our family, or the baby growing inside.

    A child growing in the womb of her mother is no less value in the eyes of God than a person who can walk around.

  • An artful dodger, you are not.

    In this country and others hide bound by religion, more value is placed upon the fetus, not the infant. Why is this?

    “And we have to do things as well, mainly for the people that God puts closest in our lives, like our family, or the baby growing inside.” Yet the bombast that comes from Christian pulpits and pews does little to nothing. Why is this?

  • I reject your assertion that more value is placed on the infant in the womb vs the infant in the world.

    Look at how much we spend to provide for food, housing, medical, education on the very young up to pre-K.

    We’re not trying to kill them either.

    So we need to add focus to those infants who are most threatened, the ones in the womb.

    Please back up your assertions with facts instead of insipid platitudes.

  • You mean he respected religious neutrality as required by the Constitution? Yeah, that was a real hurdle for the aspiring theocrats.

  • How many children were abandoned in 2015?

    Do you have ANY facts to go along with your over-the-top opinions?

  • “Look at how much we spend to provide for food, housing, medical, education on the very young up to pre-K.”

    We? Are you claiming we are a socialist nation now that owes a duty to take care of our nation’s most needy? Of course not.

    We as a nation, spend less for such things as a people than the majority of the developed world. Preferring to put the burdens squarely on the backs of those who can least handle it.

    “We’re not trying to kill them either.”

    So your baseline here is not actively trying to murder people, but using neglect and indifference. What low standards you have.

    “Please back up your assertions with facts instead of insipid platitudes.”

    Someone who claims “aborted souls are praying” has no use for facts or common sense. One should not ask for something they will never give nor really need.

  • He also disregarded the Constitution, precedent, natural law (no religion required), and fabricated an interpretation of the 14th Amendment from thin air.

    Read the briefs pro and con on Obergefell v. Hodges:

    The bulk of the arguments against same sex marriage were religion neutral.

    The notion that a ban on same sex marriages rested on religious beliefs alone, or primarily, was part of the propaganda campaign in the run-up to the case.

  • Someone who claims “Someone who claims ‘aborted souls are praying’ has no use for facts or common sense.” is simply an anti-religious bigot whose opinions in the marketplace of ideas in the public square belong with the fellows wearing white sheets anf pointy hats.

  • No I am claiming that society has chosen to care for the infants in the world, but not in the womb.

  • I love how you keep bringing up ‘natural law’ and hoping it will catch on. Despite centuries of disappointment.

  • It actually underlies a good part of Anglo-American and International law, major religions, and commonsense.

    Of course you would be unfamiliar with any of them.

  • Unless you personally know the man, this is uninformed wild speculation on your part and I find that your belief is faulty. Nothing of the sort exists in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

    Sadly, that he tucked tail and ran in the heat of the battle will be his legacy. He will be remembered for being the deciding vote in significant cases, but the final statement will always be that he chose to retire before things he set in motion were settled and he left a maniacal megalomaniac to pick his successor.

    Kenendy has left the building and the show wasn’t over.

  • We can only hope for a far better judge than Kennedy was. Time to overtune some some grievous rulings.

  • Society has done very little in that regard, and you are of the type who opposes if it makes such efforts. Individuals have chosen to do so for the pregnancies they chose to bear.

    You seem to be under the weird assumption that wombs are somehow divisible from the woman who possesses one. Biology is not your friend here.

  • Exactly! Why should it matter?

    So what if two guys or two gals come into a bakery and ask about ordering a cake for their upcoming nuptials! Or flowers? Or hiring a reception hall? Or hiring a live band or DJ? Or catering? Etc. Etc. Etc. If you are open for business, then serve anyone who comes through your doors with the business or service that you are selling.

    I guess if you French kissed your same sex partner for a minute or so, they might get the idea that you are gay. Two straight guys especially, are unlikely to do that. Although that might be kind of hot! 😀

  • It does matter. If a person is claiming to be homosexual then the public needs to know who the homosexual is so as not to discriminate. How does a single homosexual prove he is a homosexual in public?

  • Why should anyone have to prove that they are any sexual orientation? Why can’t businesses treat everyone the same, with respect and friendly service?

    But if it’s important for some reason, you will have to take their word for it.

  • You haven’t had a solid enough education to help you to see your error.

    If you knew anything about genetics and logic, you’d realize you’re on the losing side.

    A child in the womb’s identity is totally complete and unique, nothing additional needs to be added to the child in order to be a unique and complete human.

    Development, thus, doesn’t provide the unique and complete identity.

    The unique and complete identity is in fact what drives ALL development.

    Your identity is no greater than that of a child in her mother’s womb.

  • It is now, pretty much.

    But by all means believe as you please. That I foresaw these developments quite accurately while many who told me that I had “reading comprehension issues” (such as you) or that “the baker’s case is going down in flames” (such as tater tot) or “strict scrutiny here we come” (such as Ben) and ended up blindsided would indicate that I am a bit more adept at reading the legal tea leaves here, if you’ll pardon my frankness.

    Have a nice weekend.

  • That’s the problem; he is a socialist who disagrees with Anglo-anything and that other Judeo-Christian thingy…

  • So, everything is fine up to the point where the potential customer says “I want a custom wedding cake, two men on the top, and rainbow colored icing for our same sex wedding.” to a baker who they know already sells items day in and day out to every race, creed, and color but refuses to bake Halloween cakes for religious reasons.

    That’s the reality of the LBGT program which is well-funded, well-propagandized, primarily an upper-middle to upper class project backed up by the ACLU.

    Meanwhile the ACLU is filing groundless lawsuit after groundless lawsuit against Christian-affiliated hospitals to attempt to force them into performing abortions.

    That is the reality of “Why can’t businesses treat everyone the same, with respect and friendly service?” – because people with religious beliefs want to take them out in public and exercise them.

  • Kennedy realized he had been had.

    Like Blackmun in Roe v. Wade he thought he was dealing with reasonable people asking for reasonable things, and he found out he was dealing with fascists whose motto is “LBGTQ Über Alles”.

  • Kennedy was a Perfectionist in judicial philosophy, just as the four Liberal members of the Court. The only difference between him and them is what he considers a perfect Constitution to be. The ideal replacement will recognize the Constitution for what it is and isn’t, and leave all that it isn’t to legislatures, referenda, and constitutional amendments to work out.

  • Fair is fair, we cannot let Trump pick another nominee while the Mueller investigation is going on. We need to ensure the Supreme Court is free of influence and bias as it evaluates such important issues which affect the leadership of this nation. 🙂

  • “The ideal replacement will recognize the Constitution for what it is and isn’t, and leave all that it isn’t to legislatures, referenda, and constitutional amendments to work out.”

    So much eyewash to say, “The ideal replacement will follow the conservative party line whatever it is”.

    Somehow recognizing what the “Constitution is and isn’t”, always seems to involve ignoring the 14th Amendment and its outright declaration that the federal government has a duty to strike down discriminatory laws at the state and local level.

  • You are making up a nonsense argument about “aborted souls”. Education never entered your mindset here. Its all about pretending a woman is your personal property and not a person with a life and rights not subject to your opinion.

    “A child in the womb’s identity is totally complete and unique,”

    Which is a complete irrelevancy as long as its attached to its mother and depends on her bodily systems to exist.

    When you can take custody of a fetus from its mother, then you can talk about it as a person with rights which can be protected outside of her will. But you can’t. So you attack women for its own sake here. Its telling that you never address women in the situation except denigration, s1utshaming and denial of their personhood.

    In your spiel is a complete and utter regard for people, the born.

    “Your identity is no greater than that of a child in her mother’s womb.”

    Of course it is. Very much greater. I have a separate and autonomous existence unlike a fetus. My existence is never contingent on the bodily systems of a single individual bearing all of the burdens.

    Of course your concern for life doesn’t extend to any point after birth, so your claim of moral superiority here is complete and total nonsense.

  • As you say the same things over and over you lose ground, each time more quickly.

    You’re no more “autonomous” than a child in the womb.

    You’d die if people weren’t providing electricity, food, clean water, safe streets, medicine for you…maybe not as quickly as a child ripped out of its current home, but you’d be dead soon enough. You only give yourself the illusion of autonomy. Poor thing, doesn’t know and face reality.

  • Do you think that a man who puts on a skirt and is denied access to the girls bathrooms and showers is being discriminated against?

  • No such thing as a “trans woman”. Rather is a gender dysphoria man. This man is mentally ill. Do you think he should be discriminated against using the girls bathrooms and showers?

  • Of course I do. I teach parish courses on NFP.

    And what percent of the 60 million murders-in-the-womb that have occurred since R v W were spurred on by ectopic conditions?


  • “A child in the womb’s identity is totally complete and unique…” So in the Nature/Nurture debate you are totally on the side of Nature. Does the child in the womb know it’s name? Assuming you’re on the Original Sin side, then you probably don’t believe there is any trans-formative effect of living the Christian life. Born totally depraved (but complete), always totally depraved. Perhaps there is no point in even being born since life serves no purpose to the already perfected identity. Are you trying to offer a Christian argument in favor of abortion?
    I use my own name since I’m still looking for a theologian who has found the theological version of a grand unifying theory among all the flawed systems offered during the last 2,000 years.

  • More than none. Those women would be dead now, if they did not have access to abortion on demand.


  • You are spinning your wheels here.

    “You’re no more “autonomous” than a child in the womb.”

    Basic biology escapes you. A woman with a baby can sleep, have meals, go to the bathroom or do any kind of physical activities without bringing them along. Others can care for it while she does such things. The same is never true for a fetus.

    You don’t understand what autonomy means or more likely you are just a dishonest troll who doesn’t want to acknowledge basic facts of existence which are inconvenient to your phony screeds.

    If you can’t tell the difference between a baby and a fetus, you are in no position to tell anyone how to handle them. You are too ignorant or dishonest to carry out the conversation you seek.

    “You’d die if people weren’t providing electricity, food, clean water, safe streets, medicine for you.”

    PEOPLE. Not one individual. Not anyone’s bodily systems. People doing stuff in a generalized way. Nothing even remotely analogous to the physical connection of a pregnancy.

  • Let’s take this to its essence.

    How does a child growing in the womb differ from a person on life support? Oxygen, nutrition introduced artificially?

    They are as dependent.

    Our freedoms exist within a system; some are contingent on others.

    The right to pursue what you think is truly good for you (your happiness) is contingent on your ability to make choices.

    Your right to make choices exists only in so far as your life isn’t threatened.

    Life supersedes, freedom of choice, free choice supersedes one’s right to pursue happiness.

    And so this hierarchy of rights is useful in settling matters of “contention of rights”.

    A slave owners right to pursue his good, can’t threaten or obstruct a slaves right to make free choices.

    And a woman’s right to make free choices can’t obstruct a child’s right to live.

    Hierarchy brings about rational decisions and thoughtful order.

  • No many at all in fact…but you’re trying to hold on to some extreme example (which Catholic physicians and ethicists have laid out how even the quite unusual case of ectopic pregnancies can be ethically handled) to buttress a melting point.

    60 million…and maybe 1 in 10K or more is ectopic!!

  • I don’t need to use religion to argue the immorality of abortion. I can do this easily, but when arguing with secular-minded people, I never use Scripture or Religion. No need.

    I’m able to use it using logic and genetics.

    Does a child 4 months born know her name?

    Does all Alzheimer’s patient’s know their names?

  • Abortion is the only treatment available for ectopic pregnancy. I guess you’d rather that women die of complications from pregnancy than live to breed another day.

  • You still are chafing at basic facts of biology. That life inside a womb is not analogous to any kind of existence for people who are born.

    “How does a child growing in the womb differ from a person on life support? Oxygen, nutrition introduced artificially?

    They are as dependent.”

    Do your arms ever get tired of goalpost moving? You are now changing facts here because your prior statement was garbage. You compared a fetus to my existence just before.

    The answer is simple:

    ANY HUMAN BEING can monitor the equipment and is NEVER PHYSICALLY ATTACHED to the person on life support. Your need to dishonestly reframe the argument use garbage analogy is proof positive how empty and dishonest your views are.

    My prior response still turns your argument to crap. If one can give the responsibility for the care a person to another besides yourself, then it is never going to be the same situation as pregnancy. The existence of maternity wards, adoption at birth, and orphans in general make your “babies are dependent on other people too” argument look utterly foolish

    “The right to pursue what you think is truly good for you (your happiness) is contingent on your ability to make choices.”

    WRONG. My right to pursue what is good for my body is my right alone and inviolable. It is not contingent on any self-styled limitation you stipulate To attack that is to attack my existence as a person. To reduce one to property of others or the state. You are trying to argue by stipulation. Making declarations rather than rational arguments which can be supported. Stating opinion and pretending I have to consider it true. Well I don’t.

    “Your right to make choices exists only in so far as your life isn’t threatened.”

    WRONG. One’s right to make choices about their lives is unconditional. (See prior response) It is not subject to your opinion nor requires your input. Again argument by stipulation rather than a rational one supportable by facts.

    “Life supersedes, freedom of choice, free choice supersedes one’s right to pursue happiness.”

    WRONG! A life as a slave is not a worthy existence. Free choice is the center of life as a human being. Your definition of life excludes consideration the born. Therefore it is also an empty and false statement of your beliefs.

    A fetus has no choices which can be made since it has no personhood and lives at the will of its mother and her bodily system. Only the mother has choices here.

    As someone bearing 0% of the physical burdens of a pregnancy, you do not ever have a say in the matter.

    “A slave owners right to pursue his good, can’t threaten or obstruct a slaves right to make free choices.”

    You do not seem to understand what slavery is. You are a proponent of it. You claim control of the bodies of women as if they are your property as slaves. You do not respect them as people or beings with their own choices and lives. To you, they are all subject to your opinion, no matter how unnecessary it is.

    “And a woman’s right to make free choices can’t obstruct a child’s right to live.”

    Which is good. Because children are born. A fetus is not a child.

    “Hierarchy brings about rational decisions and thoughtful order.”

    Too bad you have not given rational or thoughtful arguments. Just standard, rather well worn tropes from a brain dead script. I know your playbook, you seem to have trouble outside of a canned narrative.

  • The life of a child in the womb is precisely like the life within a born child.

    Nerve responses, blood flow, bone structure, hormonal responses, the action of enzymes, cell creation, cell clean up, genetics.

    You picked an exceptionally bad assertion to make your case.

  • So let’s set that aside….let’s take the 6000 ectopic cases of aside for a minute, and examine the murder of 59,994,000 babies.

  • No, let’s not set aside the fact that abortion is a life-saving medical procedure that ensures that women can survive complicated pregnancies without being murdered by religious bigots like yourself. You do care about their lives, don’t you?

  • No scientific minded person forces a set of data to be treated all the same. None.

    Your whole argument hinges on a rare exception and you’re willing to write off 59 million and high change babies…

    Not the sign of a sane or able mind.

    You’re an emotional led person..your intellect now serves your emotions.

    That explains a lot, and it’s enough of a sign – over many posts – to realize my time is better spent with people more able to engage intellectually and rational, rather than your tendency to simply shoot sloppy spit balls at people, frothing.

  • You’re willing to write off the lives of actual pregnant people, because you want attention.

    Goodbye, and good riddance.

  • I’m happy to take up those 6000 cases after we get to the essence of why you support the murder of 59,994,000 babies….

    You can’t do that, intellectually, so it’s good we part ways.

  • They’re not babies: they’re fetuses, still inside their mothers’ wombs, not all of which are viable, anyway. Actual, real-life people are more important than fetuses. Go ask Savita Halappavanar.

  • No such thing as a “Trans phobe”. Are you for allowing men who suffer from gender dysphoria to use the girls bathrooms and showers?

  • Not talking about murder. Talking about allowing a mentally ill man or any man who thinks he is a girl to use the girl’s bathrooms and take showers with them. Would you have a problem with that?

  • I had unisex bathrooms in my queer-friendly art gallery, back in the day, all of 3 years ago. Try not to go crazy and kill anyone about it.

  • Spuddie seems to advocate the Magical Birth Canal Theory:

    I’m rather thinking about human life beginning at conception and scrapping trimesters, the Magical Birth Canal, and all the other sophistry.

    Btw, the question is not whether the child in the womb knows its name, but whether God knows it.

  • If it is merely a matter of ensuring that the USSC is “free of influence and bias”, just arrest Ruth Ginsberg. (What charge? Aggravated high treason against the US Constitution, of course.) Ten years in the ADX Federal Supermax, will doubtless improve her legal skills.

  • Well that makes no sense. Nobody is above the law, not even the president. We have to ensure the integrity of our law enforcement process. Can’t let a potential defendant pick his own judge.

  • “The life of a child in the womb is precisely like the life within a born child.”

    Not according to any facts available. Because as I have stated numerous times on responded to your dishonest premise, a fetus is not physically separable from its mother until birth and has no existence beyond her will. So it precisely not like a child, a born being.

    Now you are just making declarations without possible factual support. Time and again, you pretend a fetus is indistinguishable from a born person. Time and again, I point out the factual differences.

    You focus on a fetus entirely because of your utter contempt for the lives of women. Even going as far as denying person hood and declaring that all people must do as you command.

    Your argument has sputtered to a halt and you are left making empty irrelevant statements.

  • I focus on the child – with fully complete genetic identity – growing in the womb because that’s who is being murdered by its own mother.

  • Not at all. A child is a born person. You simply make excuses to attack women. Hence your s!utshaming, hostile response there.

    Women aren’t taking you seriously, so they should be your property to command.

    Your alleged, but not actual, care for life only extenuating the gestating. All others are detested by you.

  • Yes, a child is a born person with human rights due to passage through the Magical Birth Canal where – magically – the very same human with the same DNA goes from potential Planned Parenthood parts sales to a person with human rights.

    It is akin to the formation of the universe and other wonders of nature.

  • How you can YOU say nobody is above the law and at the same time being demanding that our immigration laws NOT be enforced and that lawbreakers be turned loose?

    Does the word “consistency” have any meaning to you?

  • .
    Silk: “In a judiciary nearly as polarized as the country itself, he was given to acknowledging that there could be justice on both sides of a contentious issue. At a time when left and right want total victory based on simple rules, his approach was to try to find common ground.”

    13 Conservative/Liberal 5-4 SCOTUS Decisions This Year.

    Kennedy Sided with Conservatives All 13 Times.

  • .
    “Nice lookin’ kid ya got there — be a shame if anything happened to him.”

    — “President” Donald Trump to SCOTUS Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in regard to Kennedy’s son, Justin Kennedy, a senior official at Deutsche Bank, the only institution that will loan Trump money..

  • .
    If Justin Kennedy was complicit in Deutsche Bank’s illegal activities, or could plausibly be scapegoated for same, that would be the “hook” or leverage that Trump could use to blackmail his father, Anthony Kennedy.