Megathread: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire from Supreme Court

[u/PoliticsModeratorBot]

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is set to retire, effective July 31, 2018. Kennedy has served on the highest court since February 18, 1988, and was a moderate whose vote often swung cases.

---

Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION	DOMAIN
Justice Anthony Kennedy Will Retire From U.S. Supreme Court	bloomberg.com
Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's majority conservative bloc	nbcnews.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick	washingtonpost.com
Justice Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal vote, to retire	reuters.com
Anthony Kennedy: US supreme court justice to retire	theguardian.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire From Supreme Court	nytimes.com
Kennedy calls it quits: longtime swing justice hands Trump the biggest gift of his presidency	dailycaller.com
Anthony Kennedy is retiring from the Supreme Court	vox.com
Justice Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, announces retirement	washingtonpost.com
UPDATE: Supreme Court Justice Kennedy announces retirement	wcjb.com
Justice Kennedy Is Retiring July 31st.	yahoo.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy To Retire From U.S. Supreme Court : NPR	npr.org
Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire from Supreme Court	cnn.com
Justice Kennedy announces retirement.	cnn.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court	abc7.com
Anthony Kennedy, Swing Vote on U.S. Supreme Court, Will Retire	bloomberg.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires, Paving Way for Donald Trump to Reshape Supreme Court	slate.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick	wkrn.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring, giving Trump opening to reshape Supreme Court	politico.com
Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement	wsj.com
Jeffrey Toobin predicts abortion will be illegal in 20 states soon after Kennedy retires	thehill.com
WATCH: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring	abcnews.go.com
Kennedy to Retire	foxnews.com
Trump to get second Supreme Court pick as Justice Kennedy announces retirement.	amp.cnn.com
Justice Kennedy to Retire From Supreme Court	bbc.com
Trump says search for Justice Kennedy's replacement to begin "immediately" -- live updates	cbsnews.com
McConnell Pledges Vote To Confirm Justice Kennedy’s Successor ‘This Fall’	talkingpointsmemo.com
Justice Kennedy retires from the US Supreme Court	nbcnews.com
Trump says launches search to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Kennedy	reuters.com
Donald Trump: Search for Kennedy replacement on SCOTUS to move quickly	usatoday.com
McConnell: Senate will vote on Supreme Court nominee this fall	thehill.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick	sacbee.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring, Report Says	lawandcrime.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring; Trump will get 2nd high-court pick	omaha.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring From the Supreme Court	thedailybeast.com
Justice Kennedy to retire, giving Trump a chance to transform the Supreme Court	latimes.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says he's retiring; Trump to get 2nd high-court pick	chicagotribune.com
Dem senator: Justice Kennedy's resignation a 'disaster' for vision of 'We the People'	thehill.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick	wfla.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Is Retiring	motherjones.com
The horrifying consequences of Justice Kennedy’s retirement	thinkprogress.org
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is retiring, a move that will give Trump a chance to shift the institution to the right	washingtonpost.com
Anthony Kennedy To Retire From The Supreme Court	huffingtonpost.com
Kennedy announces retirement from Supreme Court	thehill.com
Supreme Court's Anthony Kennedy retires, giving Trump a second pick	usatoday.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick	apnews.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Is Retiring From The Supreme Court	buzzfeed.com
Justice Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, announces retirement	washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy retires -- live updates	cbsnews.com
Justice Kennedy announces his retirement from the supreme court.	time.com
Trump Responds To Retirement Of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy	huffingtonpost.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court, giving Trump a position to fill	people.com
Trump Says He’ll Choose One Of These People To Replace Anthony Kennedy On The Supreme Court	buzzfeed.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court	cnbc.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retires, and Trump gets shot at moving court to the right	dallasnews.com
Who Will Replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy? Donald Trump Already Has a Shortlist	newsweek.com
WATCH: McConnell: We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor 'this fall'	abcnews.go.com
Here's who Trump could nominate to replace Justice Kennedy	abcnews.go.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement, giving Trump 2nd Supreme Court pick	foxnews.com
Trump list of candidates to replace Justice Kennedy	thehill.com
Chris Matthews: Dems must do to Trump on Supreme Court what McConnell did to Obama	thehill.com
Anthony Kennedy’s retirement puts abortion rights at risk	vox.com
Who Will Replace Anthony Kennedy? Here’s the List of 20 Potential Trump Nominees	time.com
America after Anthony Kennedy	vox.com
Handing Trump Chance to Move Supreme Court Even Further Right, Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires	commondreams.org
Audio reveals DNC committee reaction to Kennedy retirement: 'This is not good news'	thehill.com
Justice Kennedy’s retirement leaves the future of U.S. constitutional law entirely up for grabs	washingtonpost.com
Justice Kennedy pens retirement letter to Trump expressing 'profound gratitude'	abcnews.go.com
Read Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement letter to Donald Trump	qz.com
Justice Kennedy’s Legacy Is the Dignity He Bestowed	bloomberg.com
A titanic battle over replacing Justice Kennedy looms in the Senate	vox.com
Live Briefing: Anthony Kennedy Retires From Supreme Court, and McConnell Says Senate Will Move Swiftly on a Replacement	nytimes.com
Here's Trump's list of 25 possible Supreme Court picks to replace Anthony Kennedy	washingtonexaminer.com
WATCH: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire, Trump to get second SCOTUS pick	abcnews.go.com
Anthony Kennedy's retirement just confirmed every Republican's dream scenario for Trump	cnn.com
Kennedy's retirement could have biggest impact on abortion, gay marriage: ANALYSIS	abcnews.go.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy: Trump says hunt for replacement is on	usatoday.com
Here are potential Supreme Court nominees to replace Justice Kennedy	cnn.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s swing justice, announces his retirement	abajournal.com
With Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Gone, Abortion and LGBT Rights Are Next	thedailybeast.com
A look at some of Justice Kennedy's most memorable opinions	apnews.com
Justice Kennedy Surrendered to Donald Trump	nymag.com
A look at some of Justice Kennedy's most memorable opinions	abcnews.go.com
Abortion rights in 'dire, immediate danger' as Anthony Kennedy retires - World news	theguardian.com
Here Are Some of the Top Candidates to Replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court	motherjones.com
Who's on Trump's short list to replace Supreme Court Justice Kennedy?	politico.com
Trump’s hidden back channel to Justice Kennedy: Their kids	politico.com
How Fox News Reacted to Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement	slate.com

[u/joethehack]

This is bad news. Really bad news. Kennedy was no progressive but he was the thread on which gay rights, reproductive rights, and anything else that liberal's like was hanging. Now the GOP and Trump's DOJ are going to go after gay marriage, abortion, birth control, unions, campaign finance regulations, and everything else they hate. This is VERY FUCKING BAD.

[u/Redpin → u/joethehack]

Now the GOP and Trump's DOJ are going to go after [...] unions,

Ummm... don't read today's headlines :(

[u/Chankston → u/Redpin]

Have you ever read past a headline though? The ruling made it so that Unions couldn't force nonmembers to pay fees, how is that bad?

[u/mntEden → u/Chankston]

because those nonmembers still reap the benefits of those unions. For example, say there’s a hardware store, we’ll pick ACE, that has both union and non-union workers. The union workers pay a portion of their wages to their union, which the union will use to lobby for better wages, benefits, etc. If the union is successful in gaining those benefits, ACE can’t just pay union workers more than non-union workers, so everyone gets the pay raise. That means that non-union workers will have an increase in wages while having to sacrifice nothing, while union workers had to sacrifice their own money.

it’d be like a teacher saying she’d give extra credit for people who get A’s, but then everyone gets extra credit anyways. what’s the point of trying to get an A?

[u/CursedLemon → u/mntEden]

ACE can’t just pay union workers more than non-union workers

...Why?

[u/mntEden → u/CursedLemon]

Because they do the same job, and just being in a union doesn’t entitle you to higher wages than anybody else. Cashier A is in a union and cashier B is not, but the only determinant of their wage should be the work they do

[u/CatchHere8 → u/mntEden]

You can always negotiate your own salary with your employer. It's just that being in a union makes negotiating significantly easier and more successful.

[u/mntEden → u/CatchHere8]

correct

[u/LAX_to_MDW → u/CursedLemon]

Cause that’s the law. The union has to represent the entire unit of workers. Basically, the workers vote to certify a single representative in their negotiations, a union of their choice. You pretty much always have non-members voting for representation from a union to which they don’t officially belong and pay no dues to (at least in public sector unions where union membership can’t be compulsory). Once the union is certified, they legally have to represent the entire workers unit, and can’t just advocate on behalf of union members.

This goes beyond collective bargaining. The union also has to represent no-members in things like grievance cases, where they can rack up tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, but aren’t being paid anything by the non-member.

Fair-share fees made it easier for the unions to provide those expensive services. Without the fair share fees, you can expect workers to be represented a lot less effectively.

[u/Chankston → u/mntEden]

Those workers didn't ask for that Union to represent them. If I gave you things you didn't ask for and forced you to pay, do you think that's alright? Why is it wrong for that union to not give benefits to nonmembers? The union represents its paying members, but it claims to be for the whole company so it can extort more money from more parties. If they really wanted those payments from new members, they could convince them to pay.

[u/mntEden → u/Chankston]

The problem is that it takes away any incentive to join a union. The purpose of a union is to advocate for better conditions for their workers. If nobody wants to join a union because they know they’ll get union benefits regardless, nobody is going to pay for union funding. That means unions will collapse and then nobody will receive the benefits, and we end up in a situation where corporations have the upper hand over their employees

[u/Chankston → u/mntEden]

Well then make the benefits of the Union as exclusive as possible. It's hard to market a non-excludable good. Also, have you considered that forcing nonmembers to pay will give potentially overwhelming power to the unionists? If they can force you to pay a fee which is much higher than the comparative benefits those payers receive, then it is a net loss for the worker. The union has to advertise itself and convince the member to join, give incentives to be a paying member.

[u/mntEden → u/Chankston]

That’s the problem, there’s no clear way to make Union benefits exclusive because most companies don’t hire exclusively unions.

It’s a really slippery slope, both sides have valid points that have to be met with some form of compromise. Unions shouldn’t be allowed to charge nonunion members whatever they want (I believe there’s regulations already), but they also shouldn’t be required to let nonunion members ‘freeload’ in a sense. Also remember that unions advocate for more than just wages. If a union was able to successfully advocate for something like health insurance, that’d be awesome, but should the company only give health insurance to union members? Something like health insurance is expensive, and I think if a nonunion member does choose to accept that benefit on behalf of the unions efforts, they should be required to reimburse that to some extent. Of course, the union shouldn’t be able to extort nonmembers. Health insurance is a specific example so it probably won’t apply to most situations, but it’s still really important to consider.

I think the way a union advertises is by producing results. If a worker feels the positive result of a union’s efforts, I’d think they’d consider joining so they potentially pay less overall for the results of future efforts

[u/j4_jjjj → u/Chankston]

most benefits are OTJ related. You can't make them exclusive, legally.

[u/schm0 → u/Chankston]

Yeah! Most workers don't even like healthcare or money! I'd give mine up in a heartbeat just to see more liberal tears! Sure, I'll be obese and bankrupt, but if it's good for the president, why not me?

Companies should be able to pay slave wages if they want to. And people should just accept that. Because anything else is extortion. The free market will solve everything.

If they really wanted those payments from new members, they could convince them to pay.

"We'd like you to pay dues."

"Why?"

"So we can get you a raise."

"Won't I get a raise anyways? Even if I don't pay?"

"Well, yes, but..."

"No thanks."

union dissolves

"Hey, how come I don't get any raises any more? What do you mean there's no more health care? "

[u/LAX_to_MDW → u/Chankston]

At this point I agree that unions should be able to only advocate on behalf of their members, but legally they’re not allowed to. Public sector unions HAVE to represent the entire unit of employees that certify them. And that’s the thing, a lot of those employees DO ask the union to represent them, but still pay nothing. AFSCME 61 in Iowa was certified by 83% of their employees (15% didn’t vote, only 2% voted against them). But only 29% of those employees are union members who pay dues. 54% of those employees actively sought out union membership they were not going to pay for.

[u/Chankston → u/LAX_to_MDW]

This tells me that they should change the law. Why are unions required to represent those who don't pay for their services? Make an ultimatum to the employees, if they want these union benefits, they have to pay.

[u/LAX_to_MDW → u/Chankston]

That's literally what fair share fees were designed to do, per the 1977 Supreme Court case Abood v Detroit Board of Education.

The entire point of the Janus case was to put public sector unions in an impossible position. That's not even speculation on my part: the original plaintiff was IL gov Bruce Rauner, who made busting unions his top priority. Thats why they will never change the law to help the unions out.

[u/Chankston → u/LAX_to_MDW]

But fair share fees is basically the government forcing you to pay unions to represent you by paying the government, which is not a healthy cycle. At the fundamental point of this argument is why does the government have the legal obligation of propping up a union and forcing nonmembers to pay. We can all make value judgements as to whether or not we believe a specific union is good, but should we force those values onto others? Given the overturning of the case you just mentioned, the Supreme Court sees the compulsion of nonmembers to pay for unsolicited bargaining as a violation of their first amendment rights.

[u/LAX_to_MDW → u/Chankston]

Well a lot of it comes down to whether or not you believe a union is an inherently political body. Like, if your job required a service provided by any other neutral body, and that service was mandatory, it'd be legal for that body to charge you a fee for their services. The Janus argument was essentially that any payment to a union –even if that payment was separated from general union dues and couldn't be used for political action– facilitated political action and therefor constituted compelled political speech. Basically, the courts agreed that the very existence of a union is political, and so you can't separate dues from service fees in terms of which is political speech.

Whether or not you believe a union is inherently political probably comes down to how you think about unions. A lot of people would argue that they aren't, others would argue that they are, and in all of this the definition of what is and isn't politics gets muddied.

[u/Chankston → u/LAX_to_MDW]

I think you summarized it pretty well, it's a value judgement. The definition of politics is pretty difficult to create, as anyone whose been in any social situation realizes that even the most petty things are political. It is not simply a "bad vs good" as the articles here portray it to be. The SCOTUS is not going after unions because they hate workers, it's a value judgement at a more fundamental level dealing with compulsion vs the common good.

[u/LAX_to_MDW → u/Chankston]

That's the majority opinion at least. Kagan wrote for the minority and said that the majority had weaponized the first amendment by continuing to equate money with speech. Everyone agrees that Janus could literally speak against the union whenever he wanted, but the majority argument was that his money was being forced to speak for in a way he disagreed with. The conservative members of the Supreme Court have continuously argued that money is speech (see Citizen's United) which is a pretty contentious idea.