Live on Bloomberg TV

00:00You are very happy with your successor over a very short time . You will see that the system has worked and these justices are working very well with their colleagues. Do the justices sort of lobby each other. That's a felony. You can't do one of your famous five to 4 decisions is Citizens United. It's true that there's a problem with money in politics. You serve in the corporate 30 years the rest of the world is looking at us to see what democracy means what freedom means . Would you fix your time please. People wouldn't recognize me if my tie was fixed but Justin Trudeau sway . All right . I don't consider myself a journalist and nobody else would consider myself a journalist. I began to take on the life of being an interviewer even though I have a day job running a private equity firm. How do you define leadership . What is it that makes somebody tick Justice Kennedy you've been in the news a little bit lately you've retired from the court after 30 some years on the court . Yes. Any second thoughts about retiring none at all . I spent 43 years reading briefs and I never yet found one I couldn't put down in the middle . And word were waste is still my term on the court as an active judge. By this time since September I would have spent probably already two hundred hours reading briefs and Marion I wanted to enjoy life in a different way. So it's important. Why do you think they call these lawyers like to call these things briefs because they're not that brief really. Why don't they call them something else or you get great writing in them. You ever see great writing in those briefs. Occasionally you know that the English House of Lords the briefs are very skimpy but that's because there are hearings go for two or three days and and the judges are learning from the lawyers during the argument and they actually get books off the wall and so forth . And ours is with with the briefs this is more efficient maybe not as much as much fun but the English have a great tradition as you know of morality the English language is one of the great treasures of the world. And one time I was sitting in the House of Lords sitting in that I was in a chair that had the visitor not me and and the one of the barristers was the Queen's Counsel in the cases involve authorities that are now my lords. I wish to turn to the statute and law department said. Lawyers know what's coming up as you know the maxims of statutory construction and they cancel each other out stitch in time saves nine eight makes waiting. And he said if counsel begins to cook the maxims of statutory construction I shall be forced to leave the room and the councils of all my lord I would not wish to precipitate such a calamitous event we don't have time for that stuff . Because we read the big words at best. That's why we have the briefing. So Justice Kennedy Justice Stevens stayed on the court. He was I think 90 and some other justices have actually stayed a little bit longer than that. You're obviously in good mental shape. You're obviously in good physical shape. So you could have stayed quite a bit longer Why did you decide to retire now. Because it's hard to leave something you love but you can do it if you do it for something you love more so some justices retire upon the confirmation of their successor . You actually did something different you retired on the date that you hand in your letter to resignation to I think President Trump. Why did you do it that way. It seems to me that the way that you described the second way which was my choice was the traditional way. I haven't researched it but to retire contingent on the appointment of your successor. It seems to me not a good idea because the confirming authority is now knows that there's not no no urgency. Some people might prefer the sitting judge to the judge has been nominated. I just think that they should be concentrated on the qualifications and the temperament of the judge who's been nominated and not have this other background consideration. The hardest thing to do in Washington it seems is keep a secret. And you manage to keep a secret. How do you keep a secret when you're getting ready to retire. Well in part it was a secret even from the family we were trying to make up my mind to balance these various things and I think I think it was a wins the. Which was our last conference today and I made up my mind Tuesday night that this was what we should do and told Mary. So it was there wasn't much of a secret to leak out and then I told my colleagues I'm on the court at the end of our final conference. I said that this is going to be my decision and that the definition of a secret is it. It's not it's viable if you can only tell one person. And so I said now you can't tell anybody about this until my appointment at the White House is over which will be in about an hour and a half. And I brought the letter over to the president. And so when you call the president of the United States the White House and say I want to come see the president I'd states. They say what do you have in mind or they just kind of a sense of what you're thinking about. It was a hard to get to a point where the president talked to the White House counsel and said that it was important for me to see him and they might have guessed but they didn't. What was that they didn't tell the president who it was that was coming. I'm not sure. But anyway we had a conversation I gave them the letter. He was very very gracious thanked me. You were the last justice to be confirmed unanimously. So your successor was not confirmed unanimously. Obviously it's more political you would say and do you think the confirmation process has become unduly political since the time that you were confirmed. Well we're very careful not to comment on the confirmation process. It's I'm trying to sneak in something that you don't normally say so I say well it's committed to the but we we in fact we have a rule David that the minute someone whom we know in my case because I very what was one of my former Kirk's wonderful court and in the same way with with Brett Kavanaugh the minute the nomination is made we have what they call in business a Chinese wall no communication and nor do we call clerks that are helping them or their wives and say Be sure to answer this question under zero communication because we simply cannot have either the reality or the perception that the court is in any way involved in the nomination and confirmation of all of our members. This is this is critical. So we could kept absolute absolute distance. I remember when Chief Justice now Chief Justice John Roberts John Roberts was nominated to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the waning days of the Bush administration and the nomination failed it was was in the last few months with the gate usually closes and I saw almost a few weeks later and I said John I called him John on those things. I think you know you will be a judge if you want. And I said maybe you don't want to hear this but it's gonna be good for you to be in private practice at all you're right. I don't want to hear about but when. When he was then nominated and confirmed the first call he made was to me. So you know you're right. I think you'll find out I'm always right . So just to finish on this point you are very happy with your successor. The person who was selected you think you'll be a good justice is our correct that the public will see that the system works that we're the only branch of the government that gives reasons for what we do. And and this is to compel allegiance to our decision we can talk about us a little more if you . But it seems to me that the public will very soon see that the court is operating in a collegial deliberative thoughtful inspiring inspiring way our conferences are being conducted with the greatest degree of collegiality. You'll see that in the opinions that are written over time and over a very short time you will see that the system worked and these justices are working very well with their with their colleagues. You must take some pride in the fact that in that long history the United States Supreme Court only one justice who has two former clerks who have been appointed to the Supreme Court. So we need step seven more and we can rule the world with so when they were your clerks did you ever look at them and say hey you know you can be on the court someday. I don't I don't I don't think so. I was always very proud. I have a number of judges who are serving no former clerks or serving on the federal courts. Justice course such. Who was the first one of your former clerks to become a justice. You were the only. I believe the only justice in the Supreme Court's history who was on the court at the same time that one of your former clerks was on the court right. When you're in a meeting and you're talking about a court decision and and he has a different view than you do you say look I pointed you to my clerkship. Can't you at least have the courtesy of ev. No I talk no. I tell them the opposite. I said you didn't do what I told you to do when you were my clerk start doing it now eventually somebody named Ronald Reagan gets elected Governor Reagan. Oh I'm glad you told me about that I'm against that . And the world's most unsafe cars. Successful lobbying commission 4 4 4 5 so let's go back for a moment to your earlier days and how you got into the legal world. You grew up in Sacramento. Yes. And your father did my beautiful wife Mary. We know each other from childhood. And you've been married how many years. Fifty fifty five. Still trying to you're not sure. Fifty four fifty five and you have how many children. Three. And how many grandchildren. Ninety nine. OK . So obviously a very successful family and a very successful life. Your father was a reasonably prominent lawyer in Sacramento. Did he say to you go to law school or did he not say that. No he was a solo practitioner and we were very close . I didn't enjoy school much I was I learned to read at a very early age and read a lot of things in the library so I didn't spend much time in school. But I would go to his office just to keep him company and then pretty soon he had me stapling papers and then I was proofreading thing. And I probably saw 10 trials before I was at a high school I'd take him I'd go with him when he Sacramento was a center for people from agricultural less populated counties nearby to come to legal advice that we would go to the counties around Sacramento or to the courthouse as you went to Stanford. Yes. You must've done reasonably well at Stanford because you got into Harvard Law School. You didn't stay in the east you went back to pick up your father's practice or did you kind of take over his practice . Well it took over me. He he died and I came in in those days . David the the law profession was an old boy network literally and figuratively in a small town. My father knew every lawyer in town just about not by name. Certainly my reputation and the judges know each other. And when we went back after my father died to see if I could get the practice going to the morgue most senior attorneys in town each with a major law firm in the town those days a major law firm Fifteen people took took me to lunch and they said both of us want you to come with our firm and if you're interested we'll each have a separate lunch with you and tell you why. But we've talked and we think you should stay right where you are. This is best for the legal profession and best for your family that you keep this practice going and you've got two trials coming up in each one of them one of us will send one of our trial attorneys to sit with you at the counsel table. No charge just to make sure everything goes right. That was the old boy network and the old boy network had to change. We had in my class in law school we had close to 500 and maybe 450 . And I think six women and the Sacramento bar very few minorities very few men that had to change. But the old boy network is where I started. What type of area did you practice in whatever your problem was I was an expert at oh you're practicing law and then eventually somebody named Ronald Reagan gets elected governor. Right. And how did you get to meet Ronald Reagan. Oh it's not clear he. He came up to Sacramento and he and some of his advisers asked us about places to live and rent tonight. And I did some legal work for them as a small little matters and got to know him and and met Nancy always like Mary very much . And I said to the governor I said you know there's two things you you can't ask me about so I'll watch that I said one thing I can't ask me. Whoever should be appointed a judge because I practice in the state courts. So what else. I said Don't ask me about politics I don't know anything about it . So he and Nancy knew I never had anything to sell him if I saw something wrong. I went and was in the office one time and the uber came running in. He said Governor you know your friends from Hollywood are here today. We thought they were coming tomorrow. We haven't had a chance to brief you as a whole. What do they want. And he said over there they'll tell you it's nothing. And so in walks John Wayne Henry Fonda and Charlton Heston. And they do this thing about how good everybody looks is over ise I told the governor I thought I'd leave. He said No no you stay I have to see you in a year or so. Rings Hello. What brings you to Sacramento. And they say we're here about the arts commission. He'd just been elected. So what's the arts commission. He said Well that's a commission or state commission that gives grants to poets and playwrights and sculptures and painters and the legislature has cut the budget . I forget the numbers from 18 million to 14 million and regular call Oh I'm glad you told me about that I I'm against that they said they SEC they know how vetoed the 40. They said no no no no no. We have the 14 we want the 18. He said no no. If I'm going to veto the 14 with the government shouldn't get involved in saying what's good hard and what's bad art. That's not much money you can get it. And the world's most unsafe cars successful lobbying commission begin to unfold and fully put forth by ISE and in he vetoed the whole thing. But he was more impressive. Henry Fonda Charlton Heston or John Wayne . I think they were all equally dismayed. So what's it like when you're the most junior member of the court. I understand that you have to sit in the car and the sessions where you're discussing cases and if anybody knocks on the door you have to go answer the door. But answering the door it doesn't happen very often. And when it does you're glad to stretch and don't ever listen to your colleagues . You must have gotten to know President Ford at some point because he appointed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If it wasn't clear to me that I really wanted to be a judge although my practice was taking me mean not only around the country but around the world and I just didn't have a chance to be with the family and I really want to be a district judge that that's the greatest job in the world United States district. There's nothing you can do with the district judges their own empire. I love it but I like the trials. But Watergate came along and they weren't making any positions for federal district judges . And then the circuit vacancy came along and the president then Governor Reagan told me that he really wanted me to take that and he called President and President Ford. And so I went on the 9th Circuit in 1975. You were the I guess the youngest federal court of appeals judge in the United States at the time . Right. But you had to give up some income because you're practicing law presuming you're making more than a federal judge makes. So did you say to your family we're going to have to shrink our living style or what do you do. Well we managed Mary Ev was a teacher teaching at the time and we made it through Sacramento not expensive to live in as maybe Los Altos for the census. So so so these scripts are when the kids have been very good they've never complained about the fact that there's not a lot not a lot there. But we thought that the service to the government had its own intrinsic value and then they recognized that. So what happened is you're going to court 1975 you're confirmed I guess unanimously then for the Court of Appeals position as well. And then nineteen eighty seven I believe it was President Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the court. Craig that didn't get CAC. He didn't get confirmed by the United States Senate or what it was about a three month. There were long hearings on hearings and very acrimonious. He was not confirmed by President Reagan then appointed Harvard law professor Doug Ginsburg. He did not appoint while he didn't want. He thought about appointing but he didn't actually appoint him. And so then when just a judge or Professor Ginsburg didn't get the appointment you got a call from the White House did you say how come you didn't call me earlier and what did they say when they called you. I was somewhere where they asked me to come back to Washington which I did. And I told the president that Mary and I talked about this and we really did not want to come to Washington. Mary had some a couple of years left for her teaching retirement and this was our hometown and we thought sure the kids would be Californians . And the youngest Kristen was I think a sophomore at Stanford . We knew they wouldn't come back to come to Washington. And I told them I I just rather look for somebody else. And I said I don't know anybody in Washington is all you know me. I thought What am I supposed to do come for lunch every day . But then again and he like Mary said oh Mary we're like abortion so I guess you can't turn the president. But as it turned out all the children moved not because of us because of jobs and marriages to the east coast. So it worked out. You should get on the Supreme Court again confirmed unanimously. So what's it like when you're the most junior member of the court. I understand that you are that you have two responsibilities that the junior member one is you have to sit in the in the sessions where you're discussing cases and if anybody knocks the door you have to go answer the door. Right. And secondly you're in charge of food the cafeteria committee look after is that a big responsibility. I was able to handle it. But what the answer the door. It doesn't happen very often. And when it does you're glad to stretch and not ever listen to your colleagues . With each of us has a district of the country a circuit where we're the circuit justice. And when I was first on the court my position my appointment was to be the circuit justice for the 11th Circuit which Florida Georgia Alabama. And we tried to meet with our lawyers and our judges once a year and we were in Alabama. And it was a Saturday. And the judges were dressed they were very polite to come and hear me for an hour. And the attorneys but they were just off to play golf or tennis and hear me at nine o'clock in the morning something. And so one of the lawyers said How do you read all of those briefs. And I said well I assign them Michael Barr things. They each of them read for them but I have to read them all. And if they're very difficult I read them again over the weekend I play opera in the background I have what I call one opera two opera briefs. Well and the minute I said that they were too polite to roll their eyes. But I thought I lost the audience to this guy from the East talking about the opera and Saturday morning and I thought well I've lost the audience. But the attorney raised in hand was I have a rule like that when I write those races I'd always said I have a 1 6 pack briefing that does the back. I said I remember your last when I think of the 3 6 back do the justices sort of lobby each other. Has that ever happened. Well we never talk about. I'll vote for you on this case if you vote for me. Okay. That's a felony. No no no this is very serious very serious stuff . Most Americans probably do not understand how the court really works so many applications for cases to be held or come every year and how many do actually grafters the court actually grant the applications are called petitions asking the court for a writ of certiorari. And we have probably close to nine thousand I think maybe recently about 80 80 80 200 petitions a year and they come in all year long and the clerks are in charge of organizing them and in doing. Doing memos on them so we can review them very quickly and it's like doing push ups you do so many every morning they come in all year long . And any one of us can make a little checkmark on the petition for surgery. And if any one of us does that that means all nine of us must discuss it and it takes four votes to grant the case. Sometimes they're three votes but one of the justices who wants to hear the case thinks it's very important an asset to be put over so that he can or she can write a memo to us and from those eight thousand we discuss five hundred and we take optimum Lee I think around a hundred lately we've been taking less and so that's the petition has been granted. If three justices say I'd like to hear this case but not four . Right. It isn't how. But to any of the justices say to their colleagues well you know I really would like to hear this one can I get you to go on this or you don't lobby each other on . No we're very we're very careful both of the surf petition stage and later we'll get into the decision stage. We do not. We do not talk with each other one on one because we don't want a cabal or of a particular group of people. There's no back and background conversations go so in every case you obviously have a plaintiff and a defendant right in fact. And so each one files a brief right which are limited in size by no 50 pages 50 pages. But now we have a gigantic amicus curiae brief to each of the justices read the plaintiff and the defendant brief as well as the amicus briefs. We try to read most of the appellate. I can't read all of the amicus brief amicus briefs. Some of the cases we take have systemic importance. So the Chamber of Commerce or the AFL CIO or environmental groups will say why the case is important. And one time some high school students were there and they asked me a question. Isn't an amicus brief like lobbying. And I thought that was a very perceptive question because if you say the court is being lobbied that that's right rather rather dismissive of the court's function. But in a way it's for us to see the systemic consequences of what we're doing and in particularly in patent cases in scientific cases . We learn a tremendous amount from the amicus friend they make . The briefs are filed you read the briefs and then the justices ever talk about the cases before you hear the oral argument. Oh we have a rule. We do not talk before oral argument and the first time I get an inkling if you're my colleague is that what you're thinking might be from your questions. One of my questions might be isn't it true counsel this is a clean water act case in the Congress says you can sue and I'm saying cool it. Justice Alito there's no problem of jurisdiction here. But then he might say but isn't it true counsel that and he and he's saying not so fast Kennedy and in a good oral if we behave properly which sometimes we don't. And if and if the attorney knows the dynamic the attorney can enter into a conversation the justices are having with each other through the question and that's the oral argument dynamic. And it's just a half hour now after the oral argument is completed. You get together in your conference room and then how who talks. Who decides who writes opinions how does that work. Well within 48 72 hours of hearing the cases and this is basically as we say the first time we've got an inkling of our colleagues who we meet in the conference room just the nine of us it's absolutely confidential. And the chief justice begins by summarizing the case and giving his views. And then you go to the next most senior justice down to the junior justice who speaks last. And I actually liked that go from one of your last . It was four to four you could kind of drag it out and be very excited. So does the chief justice if he is in the majority will he assign the opinion to himself something else then already what we do we can sometimes be tentative in the case the safe subject to the views of my colleagues it seems to me that these cases are close and sometimes since it's private we can maybe suggest a wacky theory that we think might work and maybe it does maybe it maybe the sometimes people ask me do I get nervous when I go on the bench. The answer is No. I don't get nervous when I get nervous when I go into the conference because they say well Kennedy haven't you thought of this case or didn't you see this points on you. You're basically arguing four to six cases that day and you'll want to be. You want to be on your toes you know when you're and you're an attorney and you go into a courtroom you're nervous that the opinions are assigned then the justices go back and they they either do they write the opinions themselves or the clerks write the first draft CERT the answer is different. Mark my practice was I talked to the clerks I decide one clerk to write their opinion tell them what I thought should be their her and tell her what I thought should be there. But then I would write my own thing because I can't that the clerk would write something to be very good but I don't know their EV level 10 and I'm at level 2. You know you had to go when you're right you had to go down and when you're in business you had to go down the blind alleys or the false starts before you get up to the level where you want to be. So I have to do that myself so you have the opinions and then draft opinions or they circulate to all the justices they see them the justices say you know what your draft opinions so influential and persuasive that I'm going to change my vote. Does that happen very much. I wish the you . Sometimes you'll have a 5 to 4 opinion and you'll circulate it you'll say you're the majority. And the one of your colleagues who was with you. Common sense. You know I'm not so sure about this I'm waiting for the design. And then the dissent comes around and they can be convinced or it can be the other way. If you're right in the dissent then you can get the fifth vote. So it's it's very it's very exciting to see what the judges do but we give reasons for what we do and that we give reasons. David as you know in order to command allegiance to what we do to persuade the sometimes people say the court is a.. Majority Majority Shery Ahn. And that may be true in the short term we make decisions that are surprising to people and an unpopular. We think David that over time we're majoritarian. Over time I think most of the decisions of the Supreme Court have been acknowledged to be correct or if not the result. You wouldn't like it. At least they understand that the Constitution requires the result. Do the justices sort of lobby each other. Has that ever happened. We never talk about it. I'll vote for you ev on this case if you vote for me. Okay . That's a felony. You can't. No no no this is very serious very serious stuff. Each case is on its own merit. Often we and this was one of the things I did quite often was to suggest changes in wording to make the opinion I thought more powerful and more persuasive . But again this is done in writing. Or I might see Justice Breyer was right next to me I said Steven I'm going to make a suggestion about part three of the opinion it seems to me you could not emphasize this parts of my. But then I'd write a memo to him so that all the colleagues could see it. How do the justices socialize with each other or not so much. Well not so much just because of workload but we're careful if we see each other at a social event a dinner it's not really polite to the other people for us to go off on a corner and talk about collateral estoppel or something. And so. So if we see each other we would we try to end that. But but but we we have dinners together and lunches together and we have lunch together . Older and the time we're sitting. One of your famous five to four decisions is Citizens United. It's true that there is a problem with money in politics but I think we just have to address it in some other way. The voters are the ones that they see money coming in for their campaign for wrong source. There should be disclosure and they can vote against the candidate if they don't like it . In your term on the court you wrote over 300 majority opinions but you wrote ninety two majority opinions that were 5 to 4 . Really. That's right. Ninety two. So let's talk about some of the opinions that you're very well known for. Some were 5 4 4 some were not. But let me talk about for example on gay lesbian rights. 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 this my religious beliefs either that's one of the reasons I wrote 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 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 married. I just thought that this was this was wrong but it took and I struggled with it and wrote the case over a weekend . That's the way I came out. But as I say you as you write the reasons either compel themselves or not. I tell judges I tell young judges all 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 100 times you have to ask what those reasons are again and see if they are still valid. That's what you must do is introspective. And you owe it. You take an oath that you're going to listen to each side. And if you make up your mind and advanced you're not following that oath. So in abortion rights many people who work here are supporters generally of your judicial philosophy. We're 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. What was your thinking on that particular area. Well our thinking is set forth in the opinions we give reasons for what we do or we don't go around later explained it it's in the opinion we hope we hope that the opinion is convincing. I tell some people sometimes but they're one of the first cases on the court that was very controversial when I was first on the court was the flag burning case . But a Texas versus Johnson some young man is mad and he burns an American flag and Texas has a statute that you can't burn an American flag. So he's prosecuted for a criminal offense and it comes to us and was five to four. And it was David it was generational. Rehnquist white Stevens who'd been in war were one of Bragg where we're two. We just couldn't understand this flag burning thing. And it was five to four and I wrote a verse small short opinion. And I said as a poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt and the flag is very beautiful it's our symbol of national unity . But that this is this paradigm very dramatic speech and it came at 80 senators got to the floor of the Senate and denounced the cause. And then later on we were in California. And the scene some of the children for breakfast and at the pancake house or something . But it comes after you. Justice Kennedy on the court. I thought there's some C-SPAN junkie so I want to tell you about your case. It's like my Nikkei and he said I practice law on you you as a small city in northern California. And I do. I lost my mom years ago but my dad lives there. That's my hometown. And like you I'm a solo. Like you were I'm a solo practitioner. And he said My father never comes to the office. But I had a lot of people in my office. And he came in very angry and he threw down the San Francisco Chronicle which had the flag burning headline. He said you should be ashamed to be an attorney. And he said the reason is is he was a prisoner of war in Japan. Strike that in Germany. And they would take a little piece of the red white and blue cloth and make the flags and they'd go guards would find him take him away . And he said I didn't know what to do with it but I gave him your case to read is short. And he came back two or three days later and said you can be proud to be an attorney. He read the reasons he thought about it and that's what we try to do with the opinions. Now one of your famous 5 to 4 decisions is Citizens United in which you upheld the right of corporations to basically make political contributions. Right. Any second thoughts about that decision ever. I did. Again the decision stands to enforce Ev. 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 from the podium down there. The attorney for the government of the United States argued that in if there was an upcoming political campaign I forget that maybe six weeks 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 . This is the first amendment right now it's true that there's a problem with money in politics. But I think we just have to address it some other way and notice that the press was exempt . So that major newspapers could print what they want but you couldn't have a book or a movie the other way. So now the result was as you know 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 for the campaign for wrong source there 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 seen rightly or wrongly as the swing vote. What did that put undue pressure on you in making decisions because you were principally the person who could make the court go one way or the other. Why. I think every one of the justices feels pressure and in every in every case yes it was it was a little bit hard a swing vote. I said the swing vote has this symbolism of this swinging back and forth in space. I say the case cases swing I don't mind. I'm consistent. My interpretation was that Aristotle thought democracy should be given a low grade because it did not have the capacity to mature in 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 . Now you carry the Constitution with you everywhere you go. SEC right. Yeah I have it. You have your Constitution right there . Are you ready for an answer yes. In your view when you carry the Constitution you 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 is one of the hardest questions in constitutional law. And we have to wrestle with look at this as 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 and you're a great Jeffersonian scholar and Madison spent a lot of time reading dictionaries and they use spacious language life liberty property. If they had known all specifics the judge decided they would have written down they didn't do that in it. And these words have to have meaning over time. And that Jefferson peop people sometimes get to make the Declaration of Independence it is life liberty pursuit of happiness. That's the Declaration of Independence life liberty property is what Madison put in the Fifth Amendment and also the 14th. And happiness was was interesting. Happiness the Greek word is you did it. And the even in the Greek times there had two meanings. And one was happiness that you have material possessions. The other is you're happy because you have contributed to civic life and this enhances your own dignity . And the Jefferson use that in this second sense that happiness was to give to your community. And the result was enriching to you. So today as a retired justice you have the right to sit on the circuit court decisions. And are you thinking of doing that . What do you think. You know it's unclear to me that I'll sit on other courts yet because I do have rights and I want to do and teaching. Plus the chief justice has some important administrative projects for me. I'm very interested in criminal justice reform. I think our prison sentences are far too long . I think there's a lot we can do. You've Shery Ahn a corporate 30 years you've written an enormous number of opinions you're quite respected throughout the legal committee but what would you like your legacy to be. I would 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 we are in a time with an uncivil discourse Aristotle and Plato both gave low grade to democracy and I went back two summers ago and read we read Plato and Aristotle. Is that a common thing that justices do going back and reading Plato and Aristotle. I thought I wanted to do it because I was concerned and my interpretation was that Aristotle thought democracy should be given 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 they see this hostile fractious discourse. And we're not making the case for democracy. 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 is coming all over the world . 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 said that in a civil discussion there has to be respect moderation thought. And you said that participants in a discussion in a democratic society must have you know which means kindness and respect. I disagree with you on Proposition X but I respect you immensely and we must restore that to our public discourse. Final question. I'd like to ask you Is this 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 law 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 a partisan exercise. You're not a Democrat who thinks the gun was smoking and the Republicans think it was a Northern Democratic thought the lights with green and the Republican votes the light was red. That's crazy. 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 the principles of the Constitution and the principles of freedom our heritage the work of freedom is never done. Justice Kennedy thank you for your great service the American people and to our country for more than 30 years. Thank you and thank you for your service . Francine Lacqua .

No schedule data available.

The David Rubenstein Show: Anthony Kennedy

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy sits down with David Rubenstein to discuss the inner workings of the high court and some of his most influential opinions that have had a major impact on American society and politics. The interview took place at the University of Virginia Law School on Nov. 16. (Source: Bloomberg)

More From TV Shows
All episodes and clips

Bloomberg Markets
"Bloomberg Markets" is focused on bringing you the most important global business and breaking markets news and information as it happens.
More episodes and clips