Skip to comments.Reagan Aides Foresaw Kennedy Gay-Rights Views That Conservatives Now Lament
Posted on 06/27/2015 5:43:53 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
The origins of Friday's landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage can be traced back almost 30 years to the Senate's confirmation process for justices.
Officials in President Ronald Reagans administration, reeling after two failed nominees to the court, were looking for a reliable conservative who could get Senate confirmation. They found him in U.S. Circuit Judge Anthony Kennedy.
But CQ's review of documents in the Reagan Library in California found the president's aides identified "disturbing aspects" in Kennedy's record. Foremost among them: Kennedy's actions in a gay rights case.
Kennedy on Friday cast the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion in the same-sex marriage case, an opinion that vindicates both the fears of Reagans advisers about Kennedy and the liberal forces that opened the path to his nomination all those years ago.
Kennedys opinion ends with a description of same-sex couples seeking the profound union of marriage like love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.
Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilizations oldest institutions, Kennedy wrote. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. Settling on Kennedy The Senate had rejected the conservative legal intellectual powerhouse, Circuit Judge Robert Bork, in October 1987. Two weeks later, Reagans next pick, solidly conservative Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg, withdrew from consideration after admitting he had smoked marijuana. Reagan then turned to Kennedy.
One of the benefitssignificant benefitsof defeating Robert Bork was the confirmation of Anthony Kennedy, Nan Aron, the president of Alliance For Justice, who fought against Borks nomination, told CQ this week. Theres no question that the Robert Bork defeat paved the way for the Supreme Court decision in the same-sex marriage case.
(Excerpt) Read more at rollcall.com ...
“Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.”
One line I can still remember from Yeat’s incredible poem, “The Second Coming”.
The poem from which Bork’s book title came.
“Well, where has purity gotten us?”
It seems to me the left has held hard to its convictions over the past few years.
Government controlled health care - win
Gay marriage - win
Regulation of carbon emissions - win
Increase in marginal tax rates - win
Muslim infiltration of the US government - win
Immigration - win. Even with the courts holding up full amnesty, the borders are essentially open and hundreds of thousands of refugees are streaming in.
Medicaid expansion - win
Student loan program takeover by the federal government - win
Regulation of financial industry (Dodd Frank) - win
Gays in the military - win
Women in combat - win
Racial unrest - win
Government control of the internet - win
Unconstrained government surveillance of citizens - win
High deficit spending - win
Record spending/dependency on welfare programs - win
Control of the education system - win
Politicization of the IRS and the Justice Department - win
Radical appointments to the Supreme Court - win
Radical appointments to the cabinet and the creation of unaccountable “czars” to oversee the bureaucracy - win
I see no compromise from the left on gun control, they keep hammering away. I see no compromise from the left on their relentless crusade against the Christian religion.
The left doesn’t compromise.
It's really very simple. The nation is ruled by the reliance of "gay rights" on two propositions that have been accepted by the vast majority of people:
1) Sex is not about creating a new life, and, in fact, if two people engaging in sex happen, by some unforeseen series of events, to create a new life, they are to be freed of consequences by whatever means necessary. The corollary - which is that since the purpose of sex is sterile, the receptacle is irrelevant - follows.
2) The marital relation exists solely for one's personal happiness, and, if such happiness should disappear, even temporarily, the marital relation becomes "dead" and you are to be freed of it, by whatever means necessary.
These two (false) propositions were accepted, overwhelmingly, by 1975 at the latest.
After that, it just took a few decades of propaganda to get America's strong pro-fornication majority past the icky bits about our small homosexual minority and to allow them into the sexually liberated world created by heterosexuals for themselves.
GWB gave us Traitor Roberts and almost gave us Harriet Myers.
GWB, a liberal RINO & socialist like his daddy, paved the way for Comrade obamatollah and the lawless tyranny we are now facing.
May God save America...
I’m very despondent this morning and losing hope for our future. Friday, I saw “Field of Dreams” on cable and the message of American goodness brought tears to my eyes knowing we have just about lost that foundation the Founders gave us.
You nailed it. Heterosexual immorality is yawned at. Living together before marriage is something considered normal now. THAT is where the dam broke. Yesterday was just another step down the same path we have been on for decades.
You are blind.
The left took Kennedy rather than Ginsberg. Not total victory.
The left took Obamacare over single payer. Not total victory.
The left knows how to take small wins and keep building on them.
Too many on our side refuse to accept a small win, hoping for a total restoration of constitutional order.
Well, that ain't going to happen.
GWB with Roberts and his stupid wars set the stage for the disasters facing the US today.
Bear in mind that Bork died in 2012. Obama would have appointed his replacement and the vote would have been the same.
“Too many on our side refuse to accept a small win, hoping for a total restoration of constitutional order.” “You are blind”
The political turning point for the conservative movement seems to have been Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The Democrats and the media launched an all out attack on President Bush personally and the Bush administration. The administration was unable to respond effectively politically, even to the outright lies and distortions. From that point on Bush seemed to give up and became a punching bag for the press and the Democrat Party. Neither he, nor the Republican leadership in Congress (Hastert & Frist) seemed to have any fight. As a result the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, Hastert resigned to become a lobbyist, and Frist retired to go home. Boehner and McConnell took over as the GOP Congressional leaders and did nothing except maintain a low profile while currying favor with the Chamber of Commerce and K Street lobbyists. George W. Bush seemed to have zero initiative and became a punching bag for 2 years, setting up the Obama election and even larger Democrat majorities in Congress. McCain ran a pathetic campaign against Obama. There were no “small wins”, there wasn’t even an attempt to fight.
I disagree with your premise that “our side” is unwilling to compromise or accept “small wins”. The frustration of our side is with a Republican party that seems to have no core principles or willingness to fight for anything. The concern isn’t that the party will take “small wins”, the concern is today it capitulates totally to the leftist agenda. Since 2006 the Republican Party has been unsuccessful in countering any offensive by the Democrats and has failed to advance any item of the conservative agenda. They have had the Constitutional power of the purse since 2010 and have yet to use it to reign in spending or defund any government program. I for one would be happy to see them go to the wall on an issue and compromise. However, complete capitulation on every issue is not compromise. Witness the annual capitulations and humiliations over the budget battle when the Constitution gives the party controlling the House of Representatives the upper hand.
As to the left compromising on Kennedy instead of Ginsberg, Ginsberg took himself out when it was revealed he had smoked pot (i.e. committed an illegal act). At that point in our history there were still a sizable number of voters who considered commission of a crime to disqualify one from serving on the Supreme Court. Reagan and his advisors could have nominated a proven conservative jurist such as J. Harvie Wilkinson, but instead they chose to compromise by appointing a somewhat obscure federal judge from the most liberal court in the country. Choosing not to fight is not a “small win”. In the case of Kennedy’s appointment to the Supreme Court the huge victory of the left was keeping Robert Bork off the court and forcing Reagan to compromise on principle by selecting a nondescript judge without any strong judicial philosophy. Note that since the Bork fight over ideology, Republican presidents have been reduced to looking for obscure, moderate, non controversial judges to appoint to the court or position for the Supreme Court (remember the left taking down Miguel Estrada before he could be positioned for the SC). Recall also the Clarence Thomas fight where the left put Republicans on notice not to try putting conservatives on the under the cloak of a minority appointment. Thomas, while conservative, was no judicial heavyweight. As a result we get justices like Kennedy, Souter, and Roberts. Not to mention George Bush’s desire to appoint the intellectual and philosophical lightweight Harriet Miers to the Court. Would her appointment have been a “small win”?
Contrast to the Democrats when they took office under Clinton and Obama. Their appointments — Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotamayor are all hard core leftists who were put into office with the help of Republican leaders who were more than happy to compromise. The Democrats had big wins, not small wins with all of their appointments to the court. What was our “win” for the RINO Republicans supporting these nominations?
As to Obamacare, the decision not to implement single payer was not a “compromise” from the left. Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote and without any input from Congressional Republicans. It was a total victory for the left. They had the votes to pass single payer if they had wanted to pass single payer. The decision not to go for single payer was not a “small win” for Republicans, the GOP was a non factor due to its huge losses in the 2008 election. No, the decision to pass Obamacare instead of single payer was a calculated political move by the Democrats to move to socialized medicine in two steps, it had nothing to do with any “win” by the GOP. Actually the two step process allows the Democrats to continue attacking the GOP as fighting for the wealthy at the expense of the struggling middle class.
You accuse other conservatives of refusing to accept small wins. What is a small win? Perhaps you consider TPP to be a “small win”. Forgive me but when the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to win approval of a treaty, and a GOP Congress cedes that power by giving up its power to amend the agreement and agreeing passage requires only a 51% majority vote, I don’t consider that to be a “small win”. I consider it to be a big win for President Obama.
No the turning point was the Iraq war. It proved a disaster and incredibly unpopular. Along with the 2008 recession/depression, the Iraq war elected Obama and big Dem majorities in Congress. You could call Obamacare (and Gay Supreme Ct ruling) “saddam’s revenge”
Not necessarily. There are many other variables that could have happened, had bork been on the court. Other appointments might have been more conservative, or liberal. In any case, we would never have had to deal with that dunderhead, Kennedy.
It’s a shame that they outlawed duels, after hamilton was killed by Burr.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
**One of the benefitssignificant benefitsof defeating Robert Bork was the confirmation of Anthony Kennedy, Nan Aron, the president of Alliance For Justice, who fought against Borks nomination, told CQ this week. Theres no question that the Robert Bork defeat paved the way for the Supreme Court decision in the same-sex marriage case.**
This defeat of Bork has an ironic turn to it, for in its wake conservative Catholics WERE named to the court.
If only we got two Thomases; look at all the cases Kennedy has split.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.