New York Times in a panic over prospect of Justice Kennedy retiring

The New York Times is in a panic. On Sunday, April 29, in one of the longest editorials in memory, it penned an open letter to Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy begging him not to retire.  It seems the rumors that the 81-year-old Kennedy will voluntary leave the court while Donald Trump is president and the GOP holds the Senate has set afire the hair of the Times' editorial board. 

And well it should.  For the longest time, the court has been allowed to become far greater than was ever intended by the Constitution.  Instead of being content with its role of interpreting the law, the court, in too many cases, has morphed into an über-legislative body.  And the Democrats have long politicized the selection of justices with the aim of choosing people who will advance the progressive agenda no matter what the Constitution or written laws says.  Mandating homosexual "marriage" and abortion for all 50 states makes for two of the most grievous examples of this overreach.

"Please don't go," the editorial states.  "Replacing you with a hard-line conservative, in contrast, would have enormous consequences for the nation's law and the Constitution."  Quite right: Replacing Kennedy, the swing vote on a politicized court, with the likes of Neil Gorsuch would have enormous consequences – consequences all for the better.

For too long, the left has been allowed to advance its unpopular agenda through the courts.  The reform of the courts, to bring them back to democratic norms as opposed to rule by an unelected elite, is at stake.  In terms of political science, what Trump is attempting is reactionary.  That is, he is trying to turn back the revolution that made the Supreme Court 1) more than it was intended to be and 2) a tool of the Democrat left.  Given this, it is mind-boggling that the NeverTrumps still insist on undermining the president. 

The Times is focusing on Kennedy now, but it has others on its mind, too.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal's liberal, is a sickly 85-year-old woman.  Justice Stephen Breyer is 79 years old, while Sonia Sotomayor, although relative young at 63, has diabetes.  Any one of these three can be called to appear to the Supreme Celestial Court at any time.  The talk currently swirling around Kennedy is his possible retirement.  But that does not mitigate the fact that he is still 81 years old.  He has a limited shelf life on the court in any event.

Given the state of these four, the probability is high that Trump should have an appointment or two before his first term is over.  This is why the incoming election is so absolutely critical.  Republicans must maintain control of the Senate to make sure Trump's court nominations are passed.  And the House, too, has to be held so that impeachment does not become a distraction in reforming the Supreme Court.

The New York Times is in a panic. On Sunday, April 29, in one of the longest editorials in memory, it penned an open letter to Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy begging him not to retire.  It seems the rumors that the 81-year-old Kennedy will voluntary leave the court while Donald Trump is president and the GOP holds the Senate has set afire the hair of the Times' editorial board. 

And well it should.  For the longest time, the court has been allowed to become far greater than was ever intended by the Constitution.  Instead of being content with its role of interpreting the law, the court, in too many cases, has morphed into an über-legislative body.  And the Democrats have long politicized the selection of justices with the aim of choosing people who will advance the progressive agenda no matter what the Constitution or written laws says.  Mandating homosexual "marriage" and abortion for all 50 states makes for two of the most grievous examples of this overreach.

"Please don't go," the editorial states.  "Replacing you with a hard-line conservative, in contrast, would have enormous consequences for the nation's law and the Constitution."  Quite right: Replacing Kennedy, the swing vote on a politicized court, with the likes of Neil Gorsuch would have enormous consequences – consequences all for the better.

For too long, the left has been allowed to advance its unpopular agenda through the courts.  The reform of the courts, to bring them back to democratic norms as opposed to rule by an unelected elite, is at stake.  In terms of political science, what Trump is attempting is reactionary.  That is, he is trying to turn back the revolution that made the Supreme Court 1) more than it was intended to be and 2) a tool of the Democrat left.  Given this, it is mind-boggling that the NeverTrumps still insist on undermining the president. 

The Times is focusing on Kennedy now, but it has others on its mind, too.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal's liberal, is a sickly 85-year-old woman.  Justice Stephen Breyer is 79 years old, while Sonia Sotomayor, although relative young at 63, has diabetes.  Any one of these three can be called to appear to the Supreme Celestial Court at any time.  The talk currently swirling around Kennedy is his possible retirement.  But that does not mitigate the fact that he is still 81 years old.  He has a limited shelf life on the court in any event.

Given the state of these four, the probability is high that Trump should have an appointment or two before his first term is over.  This is why the incoming election is so absolutely critical.  Republicans must maintain control of the Senate to make sure Trump's court nominations are passed.  And the House, too, has to be held so that impeachment does not become a distraction in reforming the Supreme Court.