61.4 F
Saturday, May 27, 2023
HomeHealth CareSchlafly's son speculates on effects of possible Supreme Court justice retirement

Schlafly’s son speculates on effects of possible Supreme Court justice retirement



Screen Shot 2018-06-25 at 11.22.46 AM
Justice Kennedy was appointed by Reagan in 1988

ST LOUIS – In an email Monday, Andy Schlafly, son of the late conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, shed light on speculations that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy may announce his retirement soon. 

"If Kennedy retires, then that may explain why he declined to join the pro-abortion wing of the Court on the petition for cert by Planned Parenthood in the Arkansas abortion medication complications case," Schlafly wrote. "To the surprise of all, and the dismay of pro-aborts, the Supreme Court "denied cert" in that case, thereby allowing the pro-life decision by the 8th Circuit to stand.  (Planned Parenthood v. Jegley)  This is the first time in memory that the Supreme Court, which has enough votes to grant cert for Planned Parenthood, has rebuffed PP's request."

One the other hand, Schlafly said, if Justice Kennedy does not retire, his opposition to Planned Parenthood in the Jegley case could indicate the 81-year-old justice's opinion has shifted against abortion. 


Andy Schlafly

"This likelihood is reinforced by the Court's decision in Azar v. Garza, where the Court considered at a record 15 conferences the case of an abortion by an illegal alien, and then issued a decision somewhat critical of how the abortion was procured (in the middle of the night) to evade further judicial review," Schlafly wrote. In his opinion, Kennedy could have provided the fifth vote to publicly reject the pro-life arguments urged by the Trump Administration, but he apparently privately sided with the Trump Administration instead.

Schlafly said a decision is expected on Monday by the Supreme Court in the California crisis pregnancy case, NIFLA v. Becerra.  This is not really an abortion case, but a free speech one.  The Court is expected to invalidate the restriction by California on speech by crisis pregnancy centers.  The pro-abortion wing of the Court may try to expand free speech rights by abortionists, which would not be good for the unborn."

The attorney then criticized the First Amendment legal defense group Alliance Defending Freedom, which handled the NIFLA free speech case, for not supporting the Trump Administration's stance against abortions for illegal aliens in Garza. Nor did ADF support David Daleiden's petition to the Supreme Court.

Schlafly then suggests if Justice Kennedy has shifted to the pro-life side and stays on the Court, he is not going to "hold a press release to announce this publicly."  In that case, pro-life groups should do all they can to get more cases to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Our side needs to infer the possibility and push more abortion cases to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and from there the losing side will petition the Supreme Court for review," Schlafly wrote.  "Time may be of the essence in bringing cases before the Supreme Court to enable it to reconsider its pro-abortion precedents."

Schlafly and his brother John Schlafly follow in their mother's footsteps counseling conservative efforts.


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories


  1. The world is full of evil wanting to slaughter babies.
    True. And thank gosh that the Democrats continue to murder their own children. That is the only thing that has kept the socialist agenda at bay. Just look at the electoral map.
    May the devil bless their murdering hearts. Because the only thing saving this nation right now is the fact liberal chicks have no compunction about slaughtering their own children in womb.

  2. One serious problem is liberals like Michael Medved are already starting to sow the seeds of discord about future Justices by indicating it appropriate to keep balance on the court. He believes that a conservative justice should be replaced by a conservative justice to keep the balance. Extrapolating that he will also conclude a liberal justice should replace a liberal justice. We already have a recent squish in the form of Roberts on the court who was suppose to be conservative. Be warned.