Question: Summarize this article:

ANALYSIS: Despite its population of more than 320 million, the weight of democracy in the USA now seems to rest on the shoulders of one man – the "self-effacing, immensely polite" Anthony Kennedy, often described as the swing vote between conservatives and liberals on the US Supreme Court. 
  
 When the court this week decided to hear a challenge to the partisan gerrymandering that skews election results across the country, lawyers and analysts dusted off a messy, inconclusive decision by the court in 2004. 
  
 Back then, the bench split five ways. But there was a single line in Kennedy's reasoning on which the latest challenge turns. 
  
 CARLOS BARRIA/REUTERS The US Supreme Court is trying to disentangle the roles of race and partisanship when drawing congressional district maps. 
  
 A Ronald Reagan-era appointee to the court, Kennedy declared he might be amenable to a challenge if there was "a workable standard" by which it might be proved that the rigging of electoral boundaries crossed a constitutional line – but that no-one had shown him such a standard. 
  
 READ MORE: 
  
 * Trump: 'Solar wall' on Mexican border will pay for itself 
  
 * Trump: There are no tapes of Comey talks 
  
 * Trump turns rally into a vent session 
  
 * Obamacare replacement bill unveiled, tough debate expected 
  
 Lawyers and academics now believe they have devised a standard Kennedy can accept. 
  
 They'll spend the northern summer honing their briefs, along with an army of "friends of the court" who'll be for and against any reform, and there'll be oral argument in October - on which more later. 
  
 First, we must confront the existing reality. 
  
 A democracy that holds itself up as a shining example to the world, that "city on a hill" invoked by John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, tolerates the effective disenfranchisement of millions of voters and the stealing of dozens of congressional seats at every election by whichever party wins control of the political process at state level. 
  
 It's called gerrymandering, after an 1812 redistricting effort by then-Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, whose map-bending produced a district shaped like a salamander. 
  
 But one of the so-called US Founding Fathers did it first. In 1788, before there was a Congress, independence hero Patrick Henry had boundaries altered in colonial Virginia in a bid to thwart James Madison, his rival and later the fourth US president. 
  
 Today's gerrymandering ruthlessly harnesses technology and big data to "pack" and "crack" voters in districts as bent and twisted as the names bestowed on them: "Goofy kicking Donald Duck" [Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional district]; the upside-down elephant [Texas' 35th]; the Latin earmuffs [Illinois' 4th]; Bart Simpson holding a fishing pole [Michigan's 14th]; and the praying mantis [Maryland's 3rd]. 
  
 Ideally, all votes should have equal weight. But when "packed", electors of a particular persuasion are piled into one electorate so as not to dilute the majorities of the opposing party in adjoining seats. If "cracked". they are sprinkled among voters of the opposing party in numbers which ensure their candidate never wins. 
  
 Florida's 5th district, into which non-white voters are "packed", narrows at one point to cross a bridge – lest the GOP majorities in the adjoining 3rd and 6th districts be diluted. 
  
 Michigan's GOP-drawn districts are so gerrymandered that only 21 of the state's 148 legislative seats are truly competitive – that is, they were won by less than five points. Ohio usually is split about 50-50 in presidential polls, but the boundaries have been drawn to give Republicans 12 of the state's 16 seats. 
  
 The impact on American democracy is staggering. At the 2016 elections, the average winning margin for seats in Congress was more than 37 per cent. Only 17 of 435 seats were decided competitively – which is to say by less than five points. 
  
 This process has its own coarse and colourful jargon; creating new boundaries that put two legislators from one party into a single seat, forcing one to quit, is called "scorpions in a bottle". 
  
 The US Supreme Court has visited the issue of partisan gerrymandering on at least three occasions – in 1986, 2004 and 2006 – variously branding the practice illegitimate; seriously harmful; incompatible with democratic principles; and a "manipulation of the electorate". 
  
 Yet the court has never ruled against it, though it has ordered that boundaries be redrawn when gerrymandering was found to be race-based. 
  
 But its refusal to call out rigging along partisan lines has become a tool in the mapmakers' arsenal: defending the boundaries of its 12th district, North Carolina recently argued that it was helping Republicans, not punishing blacks. 
  
 A few states, including California and Arizona, have switched to independent redistricting commissions. 
  
 Among the 10 most ugly redistricting efforts, eight are the handiwork of Republican state governments. The Democratic Party earns a place in the hall of shame for its current efforts in Maryland – and historically, for more rampant efforts from the 1960s through to the 1990s. 
  
 In 2010, the GOP caught the Democrats resting on their laurels. In the wake of the so-called wave election in 2008, Barack Obama was in the White House; Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate; the party was in control of both chambers in 27 states and one chamber in each of another six states. 
  
 Republican strategists devised a devilish plot. Karl Rove opted for no less than the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal to reveal the thrust of what was to be known as the REDMAP Project. 
  
 Beneath a heading that read: "He who controls redistricting can control Congress", Rove explained that the 2010 census was about to be taken, necessitating a round of redistricting, and the GOP would focus on state legislatures in 2010 and in 2012 – flipping any they could to ensure mapmaking pencils would be in Republican hands. 
  
 It was as black and white - or as red and blue - as that. 
  
 In 2010, the Republicans gained almost 700 seats in state legislatures, enough to swing 20 chambers to their control. 
  
 At the 2012 elections, Obama held the state of Pennsylvania by about 300,000 votes and Democrats outpolled Republicans there by almost 100,000 votes – but of the state's 18 congressional seats, 13 were won by Republicans. 
  
 And in the 2014 midterm elections, redistricting delivered Democrats their worst defeat in more than 70 years. 
  
 So what can the Supreme Court do about all this? Its decision to review the constitutionality of the Republicans' approach to district boundaries in Wisconsin could revolutionise electoral politics and rob Republicans of their advantage in the aftermath of the 2020 census. 
  
 On gaining full control of the Wisconsin legislature for the first time in decades in 2010, the GOP rejigged district boundaries in such a way that on winning just 48.6 per cent of the vote, the party walked away with 60 of the 90 State Assembly seats; and at the next elections, they picked up 52 per cent of the vote but bagged 63 seats. 
  
 The maps, a lower appeal court found, were "designed to make it more difficult for Democrats ... to translate their votes into seats". Or as Princeton professor Samuel Wang said, they were proof again that legislative 'foxes' were being allowed to design electoral "henhouses". 
  
 New York University constitutional law professor Richard Pildes is disturbed by the seeming indifference of many Americans to such an open scam. 
  
 But Pildes offers two explanations, based on feedback from his speaking engagements: "There's a major distrust of any body that is relatively independent, and the American culture of democratic participation leads many to believe we're better off with people who can be voted out of office doing the redistricting." 
  
 At the Brennan Centre for Justice, counsel Michael Li fears an all-out redistricting war after the 2020 census. 
  
 "Globally, no other country leaves redistricting in the hands of self-interested parties," he said. "And Wisconsin is particularly pernicious because of how it locks in such a disproportionate share of seats for one party. 
  
 "The evidence is especially strong, in terms of emails and depositions on what people were trying to do – and there's reason to believe that [Justice] Kennedy is still the sweet vote." 
  
 But American justice is a fickle business – often it's what is legal that is shocking, more than what is illegal. And Paul Smith, who will argue the Wisconsin case before the Supreme Court in October, is taking nothing for granted. 
  
 "We've got to this point before – and lost," he said. 
  
 Smith, vice-president for litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center, argued the 2004 case that split the bench five ways. 
  
 He frames the question for the court as finding a compromise somewhere between the "wildly unrealistic" possibility of eliminating all politics and allowing "a certain amount" of politics in the process. 
  
 "There have never been five justices who will agree on where that line should be drawn ... but maybe now they'll be more willing to draw a line between 'troublesome' and the really bad stuff." 
  
 The standard which backers of the case hope will find favour with Justice Kennedy is a complex equation called the Efficiency Gap (EG), that seeks to measure partisanship by tallying "wasted votes": those of Democrats "packed" into districts in numbers that exceed the number needed for a Democratic candidate to win. 
  
 Based on the work of University of Chicago law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, the figures are massaged district by district to calculate the EG, which is measured as a percentage. Arguing that an EG in excess of 7 should be deemed unconstitutional, the Wisconsin EG was found to be 13.3 in 2012 and 9.6 in 2014. 
  
 A 2015 study that applied the formula nationally, found that over a 43-year period, one-third of all redistricting in 41 states exceeded the 7 per cent standard and that elections in 2012 and 2014 produced EGs exceeding 10 points in Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. 
  
 Former Wisconsin state senate leaders Timothy Cullen, a Democrat, and Dale Schultz, a Republican, have joined the Wisconsin fight. In a jointly written op-ed in The Washington Post, they argue: "Fighting gerrymandering is about fighting abuse of power, no matter who does it. If our side wins the lawsuit, we will establish a principle that reins in not only Republicans in states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina but also Democrats in states such as Maryland and Illinois." 
  
 So, all eyes will be on Justice Kennedy. This case is proceeding because of the glimmer of light he shined on the redistricting scandal back in 2004. 
  
 But now some are wondering if he's swinging the other way. 
  
 The court's decision this week to take the Wisconsin case was a political bombshell. But it came with a rider – it also allowed the disputed Wisconsin district maps to stand, which means they will be used for at least one more cycle of elections. 
  
 And who signed off on that little wrinkle? No surprise that the court's four reliable conservatives were on board – justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. 
  
 And the fifth? Ah yes – that was Justice Anthony Kennedy. ||||| Tweet with a location 
  
 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| President Trump will stick with the same list of potential nominees for the next Supreme Court vacancy, he told The Washington Times in an exclusive interview in which he also waved aside the lack of a honeymoon from Capitol Hill, saying Republicans are “going to get there” and Democrats are still smarting over losing an election they thought they couldn’t lose. 
  
 Speaking in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump said a repeal of Obamacare would have passed the House last week if Republican leaders had put it up for a vote. He now expects a vote early in May, which he acknowledged is outside the 100-day time frame he had hoped for but still much shorter than the 15 months it took President Obama to have the national health care bill enacted. 
  
 He also said he expects the near-universal opposition to his agenda from congressional Democrats to wane. 
  
 “I notice it calming down,” he said. 
  
 Reflecting on his first weeks, the businessman turned statesman took pride in having upended traditional procedures in Washington. He said he has already notched foreign policy successes that eluded Mr. Obama — such as the release of Egyptian-American charity worker Aya Hijazi from detention in Egypt — and has made his mark at home with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. 
  
 “You’ll have hundreds of cases decided by 5-4, and you got that. So that’s a great legacy,” the president said, noting that at 49, Justice Gorsuch has decades of important decisions ahead of him. 
  
 Mr. Trump shook the election campaign last year when he announced a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees, selected with the help of the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation. The list was an instant hit with conservatives and helped cement the candidate’s support among the Republican base. 
  
 “It’s a great list. From the moment I put that list out, it solved that problem. And I was proud to say it was my idea,” he said. 
  
 Mr. Trump said he has heard rumors that one of the justices will retire when the current court session ends in June but that he doesn’t have any inside knowledge. 
  
 “I don’t know. I have a lot of respect for Justice Kennedy, but I just don’t know,” Mr. Trump said, referring to the senior member of the bench, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. “I don’t like talking about it. I’ve heard the same rumors that a lot of people have heard. And I have a lot of respect for that gentleman, a lot.” 
  
 Mr. Trump said conservative voters should be assured that his next choice will be “really talented and of our views.” Asked specifically whether he would pick from the list of candidates he put forward in the campaign, Mr. Trump was unequivocal: “Yes,” he said, adding, “That list was a big thing.” 
  
 Democrats rallied near-unanimous opposition and mounted a filibuster in the fight over Justice Gorsuch, forcing Senate Republican leaders to trigger the “nuclear option” and take a shortcut to change the rules. 
  
 Fighting the Democrats 
  
 It was just one of the areas where Democrats have vowed to resist Mr. Trump at every turn. 
  
 The president took a dealmaker’s view of the obstructions he had faced on Capitol Hill, particularly from Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, a fellow New Yorker. 
  
 Last week, as the federal government teetered on the verge of a partial shutdown, Republican leaders said Mr. Schumer was refusing to even talk to Mr. Trump — particularly about permitting any money for Mr. Trump’s Mexico border wall. The president, though, said Mr. Schumer is coming to the table. 
  
 “He’s negotiating. I spoke to him three days ago. He’s negotiating from a standpoint where the Democrats have been decimated,” the president said. “They thought they were going to win. It’s almost impossible for the Democrats to lose. And I think we’re much stronger today than I was on election night. You’ve seen some polls come out where I’m stronger today than I was on election night. So they’re not happy, they’re very angry.” 
  
 The Senate Democratic leader, though, said Sunday that it is Mr. Trump who isn’t ready to talk about serious issues on Democrats’ terms. 
  
 “On the issues so far — taxes and health care — he doesn’t consult us at all,” Mr. Schumer said on “Fox News Sunday.” “He puts together a plan that is very hard-right, special-interest [and] wealth-oriented and says the way to be bipartisan is to just support his plan. That’s not the way America works.” 
  
 Mr. Trump has struggled to forge unity within Republican ranks, too, hindering his efforts to notch early-term accomplishments. But the president said he wasn’t put off by the lack of a honeymoon even from his own party. 
  
 “It’s a tight margin. These are really terrific people, and they’ve been very good to me in the sense that they say, ‘We want to do this for our president,’” he said, adding that includes both the right and the centrists. 
  
 “I will say, they have their views, their views are somewhat spread out, I believe they’re going to get there,” he said, pivoting to the debate over repealing Obamacare. “I believe over the next week or two or three, I said take your time. You said Obama had a honeymoon. The truth is Obamacare took 17 months to get approved. I only started working this a month and a half in. We could have taken a vote today, I think it could have made it, but who wants to take the chance? So we’ll wait till next week. This is an artificial barrier, which I helped cause to a certain extent, but we’ve done a lot.” 
  
 Fighting the press 
  
 A constant during Mr. Trump’s first 100 days in office has been his running battle with the media. Despite his efforts to bypass the media by posting frequent messages on Twitter, Mr. Trump said his job approval ratings would be better if he weren’t confronting a steady stream of what he calls “fake news.” 
  
 “I think I’m polling really, really well, considering if you watch television. … You’d say, ‘How can this guy be at 48 percent?’” Mr. Trump said. “Anywhere in that [range], how can you do that when every single story is a hit?” 
  
 One of Mr. Trump’s biggest foreign policy challenges so far has been the threat posed by North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs. White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said Sunday that the U.S. would pay for the $1 billion THAAD missile defense system in South Korea, despite Mr. Trump’s comments to The Times two days earlier about making Seoul pick up the tab. 
  
 “What I told our South Korean counterpart is until any renegotiation, that the deals in place, we’ll adhere to our word,” Mr. McMaster said on “Fox News Sunday.” 
  
 Mr. Trump’s comments had caused unease in Seoul, which was already nervous about the belligerent exchanges between Washington and Pyongyang. Mr. McMaster sought to reassure the ally in call earlier Sunday and told Fox that he was not contradicting Mr. Trump. 
  
 “The last thing I would ever do is contradict the president of the United States. And that’s not what it was,” he said. “What the president has asked us to do, is to look across all of our alliances and to have appropriate burden-sharing, responsibility-sharing. We’re looking at that with our great ally South Korea, we’re looking at that with NATO.” 
  
 Mr. McMaster also stressed that North Korea poses a “grave threat” to the U.S. and allies in the region and that Mr. Trump was determined to resolve the issue “one way or another.” 
  
 Mr. Trump also said in the interview with The Times that he wants to renegotiate or withdraw from the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement known as Korus, which enters a review period this week. The current version, first begun under the George W. Bush administration, took effect in March 2012 under the Obama administration. 
  
 “It’s been a very bad deal for the United States, negotiated by [former Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Trump said. 
  
 ⦁ S.A. Miller contributed to this report. 
  
  
  
  
  
 Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission. ||||| Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and his clerks moved up a long-planned reunion event for his staffers by a year, sparking rumors that the 30-year veteran of the high court was contemplating retirement. Should Kennedy step down, it would remove one of the Supreme Court's key swing votes and give President Trump the opportunity to give it a durable conservative majority. 
  
 The justice has not given any public indication of his plans. Nevertheless, inside-the-beltway gossip has speculated for months that Kennedy, 80, may soon step down. Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, both Senate Judiciary Committee members, have said that they expect another vacancy on the court to occur this summer. 
  
 The rumors intensified following the news that the weekend reunion event's date was advanced as well as a tweet by George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, a former Kennedy clerk, on Friday: "Soon we'll know if rumors of Kennedy's retirement are accurate." 
  
 In a tweet Saturday Kerr indicated that his comment was just speculation: "The news cycle in 2017: I am now tweeting about a Drudge banner that links to a story about speculation that quotes one of my tweets." 
  
 If Kennedy were to step down it would be certain to lead to an intense fight on Capitol Hill regarding Trump's eventual nominee to replace him. Past nominations that merely replaced one Supreme Court justice with a similar like-minded one were nevertheless hard-fought battles. Kennedy's replacement has the potential to shift the balance of the court for decades. 
  
 Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to President Trump, said earlier this year in an interview with Infowars host Alex Jones that the likely pick to replace Kennedy was "clearly Neil Hartigan from the Western District of Pennsylvania," one of the judges Trump reportedly considered to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia before settling on Justice Neil Gorsuch. The Washington Examiner previously noted that while it is possible that Stone was referring to the former Democratic Illinois Attorney General Neil Hartigan, it's more likely he messed up the name of Judge Thomas Hardiman, a 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals judge who appeared on Trump's Supreme Court short lists. ||||| FILE - This Jan. 25, 2012, file photo, shows the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington. The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump... (Associated Press) 
  
 FILE - This Jan. 25, 2012, file photo, shows the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington. The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump... (Associated Press) 
  
 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump administration's travel ban and a decision due in a separation of church and state case that arises from a Missouri church playground. 
  
 The biggest news of all, though, would be if Justice Anthony Kennedy were to use the court's last public session on Monday to announce his retirement. 
  
 To be sure, Kennedy has given no public sign that he will retire this year and give President Donald Trump his second high court pick in the first months of his administration. Kennedy's departure would allow conservatives to take firm control of the court. 
  
 But Kennedy turns 81 next month and has been on the court for nearly 30 years. Several of his former law clerks have said they think he is contemplating stepping down in the next year or so. Kennedy and his clerks were gathering over the weekend for a reunion that was pushed up a year and helped spark talk he might be leaving the court. 
  
 "Soon we'll know if rumors of Kennedy's retirement are accurate," one former Kennedy clerk, George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, said on Twitter Friday. 
  
 When the justices take the bench Monday, they are expected to decide the case of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri, which was excluded from a state grant program to pay for soft surfaces on playgrounds run by not-for-profit groups. The case is being closely watched by advocates of school vouchers, who hope the court will make it easier to use state money to pay for private, religious schooling in states that now prohibit it. 
  
 Missouri has since changed its policy under Republican Gov. Eric Greitens so that churches may now apply for the money. 
  
 Also expected in the next few days, though there's no deadline by which the court must decide, is a ruling on whether to allow the administration to immediately enforce a 90-day ban on visitors from six mostly Muslim countries. 
  
 Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, could play a pivotal role in both the travel ban and church playground cases. 
  
 In all, six cases that were argued between November and April remain undecided. Three of those, all involving immigrants or foreigners, were heard by an eight-justice court, before Gorsuch joined the bench in April. 
  
 If the eight justices are evenly divided, those cases could be argued a second time in the fall, with Gorsuch available to provide the tie-breaking vote. ||||| Washington (CNN) Justice Anthony Kennedy, the man who so often determines the outcome of the most controversial Supreme Court cases, is himself the center of brewing speculation. 
  
 Will he stay or will he go? 
  
 The rumors have swirled for months and the 80-year-old justice has done nothing either personally or though intermediaries to set the record straight on whether he will step down. 
  
 Helping drive the speculation, dozens of Kennedy's former law clerks traveled to Washington this weekend to participate in a private clerk reunion that occurs regularly -- and many of them wondered if it will be their last chance to meet with him while he is still on the bench. 
  
 At the end of a dinner with the former clerks Saturday night, Kennedy addressed the crowd, saying he had heard some speculation about an announcement tonight, "and here it is," he said: The "bar will be open after dinner." 
  
 But sources close to Kennedy say that he is seriously considering retirement, although they are unclear if it could occur as early as this term. 
  
 His departure would cause a seismic shift and offer President Donald Trump a chance to continue reshaping the court. Trump's first nominee -- Justice Neil Gorsuch, himself a former Kennedy clerk -- joined the court earlier this year. 
  
 President Reagan meeting with Judge Anthony Kennedy in the Oval Office 
  
 Why is Kennedy so important? 
  
 Like no other justice in recent history, Kennedy has cast the vital swing vote in cases that grab the countries' attention. 
  
 To liberals he is a hero for Obergefell v. Hodges -- a landmark opinion that cleared the way for same-sex marriage in 2015 and will likely be his most lasting legacy. 
  
 "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law and the Constitution grants them that right," Kennedy wrote. 
  
 To the delight of abortion rights supporters, Kennedy voted to reaffirm the core holding of Roe v. Wade in 1992. 
  
 "As the court's most important Justice -- at the center of the institution's ideological balance -- Justice Kennedy's ability to bridge the divide between left and right on critical issues such as the right to access abortion cannot be overstated," said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "Replacing Justice Kennedy with a Trump nominee would almost certainly sound the death knell for Roe, just as candidate Trump promised during the 2016 campaign." 
  
 But nine years later, he sided once again with the liberals on the court to strike down a Texas law that abortion rights supporters thought was the most strict nationwide. Without Kennedy's vote, the law would have been allowed to go into effect, inspiring other states to pass similar legislation. 
  
 In the same term, Kennedy pivoted on the issue of affirmative action when he voted for the first time in favor of a race-conscious admissions plan at a public university. 
  
 After that term, former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said, "It is very much Justice Kennedy's Court." 
  
 "You can't understand how important his affirmative action opinion is without understanding his earlier jurisprudence," said Katyal. "For decades, he has been the court's most eloquent voice on the need to be color blind -- why he changed his mind is something historians will debate for decades." 
  
 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Anthony Kennedy, the longest-serving member of the current Supreme Court, has announced that he will be retiring at the end of July. Kennedy, 81, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. He is a conservative justice but has provided crucial swing votes in many cases. Hide Caption 1 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy was born in Sacramento, California, on July 23, 1936. In this photo, circa 1939, he sits between his mother, Gladys, and his sister, Nancy. Hide Caption 2 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy wears his Cub Scout uniform as he poses with his brother, Tim, circa 1946. Hide Caption 3 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy, third from right in the front row, stands with other Cub Scouts in the 1940s. Hide Caption 4 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy, right, spent time with the California Army National Guard after finishing law school in 1961. The man on the left, John J. Hamlyn Jr., also became a lawyer like Kennedy. Hide Caption 5 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy, right, and Hamlyn pose for a photo after basic training. Hide Caption 6 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy After more than a decade as a lawyer, Kennedy became a judge on the US Court of Appeals in 1975. He was nominated by President Gerald Ford on the recommendation of California Gov. Ronald Reagan. Hide Caption 7 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy This courtroom photo of Kennedy was taken in 1976. Hide Caption 8 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy has breakfast with his wife, Mary, and his son Gregory in 1984. Hide Caption 9 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy and his wife walk together in Sacramento, California, in 1987. Hide Caption 10 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy From 1965 to 1988, Kennedy was also a professor of constitutional law at the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law. Hide Caption 11 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy In 1987, Kennedy was nominated by President Reagan to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Lewis Powell's retirement. The nomination came after the confirmation failures of nominees Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg. Hide Caption 12 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy, center, talks with US Sens. Ted Kennedy, left, and Joe Biden before a confirmation hearing in Washington. The two Kennedys are not related. Hide Caption 13 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy meets with President Reagan in the Oval Office. Hide Caption 14 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy is joined by his wife as he is sworn in by Chief Justice William Rehnquist on February 18, 1988. Reagan is on the right. Hide Caption 15 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy, top right, appears in a formal Supreme Court portrait in April 1988. In the front row, from left, are Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan Jr., Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Byron White and and Harry Blackmun. In the back row, from left, are Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Kennedy. Hide Caption 16 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy speaks at the McGeorge School of Law in 1991. He delivered the inaugural address in a lecture series named for the late Archie Hefner, whose portrait is behind Kennedy. Hefner was a prominent Sacramento attorney active in numerous civic and charitable groups. He died in 1988. Hide Caption 17 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy is on the far right in this Supreme Court portrait from 1998. In the front row, from left, are Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Kennedy. In the back row, from left, are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Hide Caption 18 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy In 2004, Kennedy speaks to high school students at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. Hide Caption 19 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy speaks during a Senate subcommittee hearing in 2002. Hide Caption 20 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy discusses the court's budget requests with a House committee in April 2005. Hide Caption 21 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy participates in a panel discussion in Washington in November 2005. Hide Caption 22 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy receives an honorary degree at New York University in May 2006. Hide Caption 23 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy delivers the commencement address at New York University. Hide Caption 24 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy In February 2007, Kennedy testifies at a Senate committee hearing on judicial security and independence. Hide Caption 25 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy testifies before a House subcommittee in March 2007. He and fellow Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about concerns with the ongoing remodeling of the court building, the reduction of paperwork due to electronic media, and the disparity of pay between federal judges and lawyers working in the private sector. Hide Caption 26 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy The Supreme Court meets with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in September 2009. From left are Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama, Sonia Sotomayor, Biden, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and retired Justice David Souter. Hide Caption 27 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy leaves after a Catholic Mass in Washington in October 2009. Hide Caption 28 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy joins the President and other officials at a memorial for the victims of a shooting in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011. Hide Caption 29 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy smiles as he is introduced to faculty members at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in October 2013. Kennedy was teaching there for a week. Hide Caption 30 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy is saluted by sailors as he tours the USS John C. Stennis in 2015. Hide Caption 31 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy testifies about a Supreme Court budget request during a House subcommittee meeting in 2015. Hide Caption 32 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy President Obama greets Kennedy and other Supreme Court justices before his final State of the Union address in January 2016. Hide Caption 33 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy, second from left, joins other Supreme Court justices in February 2017 during President Donald Trump's first address to a joint session of Congress. Hide Caption 34 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy As President Trump looks on, Kennedy administers the judicial oath to new Justice Neil Gorsuch in April 2017. Hide Caption 35 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Kennedy and Trump walk together after Gorsuch's swearing-in ceremony. Hide Caption 36 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Trump stands with the Supreme Court at Gorsuch's formal investiture ceremony in June 2017. From left are Elena Kagan, Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts, Trump, Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Hide Caption 37 of 38 Photos: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Several members of the Supreme Court pose for a portrait before taking part in a procession to mark Harvard Law School's bicentennial in October 2017. On the top row, from left, are Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer and Gorsuch. In front of them are Kagan and retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Hide Caption 38 of 38 
  
 Still a conservative 
  
 However, sometimes Kennedy voted with the four conservatives on the bench. It was Kennedy who penned the majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC -- striking down election spending limits for corporations and unions in support of individual candidates. 
  
 He's also sided with the right side of the bench on issues such as gun control and voting rights. Kennedy joined Chief Justice John Roberts' 2012 opinion, Shelby County V. Holder striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. 
  
 And Kennedy sided with George W. Bush in the case that essentially decided the 2000 presidential election for the GOP candidate. 
  
 Why now? 
  
 On one side is his age -- a desire to spend more time with his grandchildren is driving any decision, and in many ways he has already established an enduring legacy on the court. 
  
 In terms of a replacement, Kennedy might take comfort in the list of 20 judges Trump has vowed to draw from when considering the next vacancy on the court. 
  
 Another consideration is that if Kennedy were to delay his retirement for a year, his replacement would face confirmation during the mid-term election year, something that could further inject politics into an already controversial process. 
  
 On the other hand, Kennedy is well aware of his role on the court and could be alarmed by how politicized the confirmation process has become. Indeed, Republicans were forced to change Senate rules to make it easier to confirm Gorsuch after Democrats objected. 
  
 Kennedy might think it would make sense to remain on the bench until the political climate simmers down -- although there's no guarantee that would ever happen. 
  
 Retiring at 81 would not be all that much different than retiring at 80 and he would get to serve longer with Gorsuch as well as take up a case on next term's docket concerning partisan gerrymandering -- an issue that might once again keep Kennedy in the spotlight. ||||| Getty Images 
  
 The speculation is hardly new. For months now, Supreme Court watchers have been wondering whether Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the deciding vote in controversial cases, will be stepping down. (Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick looked into the issue almost a month ago.) Now as the Supreme Court gets ready for its final week of work before the summer holiday, some are wondering whether Kennedy will use the court’s last public session on Monday to announce his retirement. Kennedy himself hasn’t actually said anything about the issue, but the prospect that President Donald Trump will be able to fill up a second Supreme Court seat is terrifying many liberals who are afraid that would allow conservatives to take decisive control over the highest court in the land. 
  
 So where is all this speculation coming from? The Associated Press summarizes: 
  
 Kennedy turns 81 next month and has been on the court for nearly 30 years. Several of his former law clerks have said they think he is contemplating stepping down in the next year or so. Kennedy and his clerks were gathering over the weekend for a reunion that was pushed up a year and helped spark talk he might be leaving the court. 
  
 “Soon we’ll know if rumors of Kennedy’s retirement are accurate,” one former Kennedy clerk, George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, said on Twitter Friday. 
  
 Soon we'll know if rumors of Kennedy's retirement are accurate, which makes this post on time limits timely again. https://t.co/Qw1hFJWAvC pic.twitter.com/NHMgtC0Ejx — Orin Kerr (@OrinKerr) June 23, 2017 
  
 Advertisement 
  
  
  
 Kerr seemed to dismiss the attention his tweet received, writing on Saturday that he was just thinking out loud and had no inside information on the issue. “The news cycle in 2017: I am now tweeting about a Drudge banner that links to a story about speculation that quotes one of my tweets,” Kerr wrote. 
  
 The news cycle in 2017: I am now tweeting about a Drudge banner that links to a story about speculation that quotes one of my tweets. pic.twitter.com/qmigtvCyYW — Orin Kerr (@OrinKerr) June 24, 2017 
  
 To be clear, I have zero inside knowledge about if Kennedy will retire. I was just noting speculation in tweet about case for term limits. — Orin Kerr (@OrinKerr) June 24, 2017 
  
 CNN talks to “sources close to Kennedy” who say the justice is seriously considering retirement, but they aren’t sure about timing and whether it will happen this term. Several of his former clerks who will be attending this weekend’s reunion are reportedly concerned this will be the last time they will see Kennedy as a justice. |||||
Answer: – CNN uses the term "fever pitch." At this point it's only speculation, but the big question swirling around the Supreme Court has nothing to do with one of its cases. It's whether Justice Anthony Kennedy plans to step down—and whether he may do so Monday. What you need to know: Slate points out that the speculation isn't fresh, but with Monday being the court's final public session of the term, that would be the time to do it if the 80-year-old is going to do it now. Another reason the speculation is ramping up: A number of reports on the topic cite unnamed sources close to him as well as his former law clerks who say they think he's thinking about it. CNN uses the phrase "seriously considering." And this from the AP: "Kennedy and his clerks were gathering over the weekend for a reunion that was pushed up a year and helped spark talk he might be leaving the court." Bill Kristol put it at "at least 50-50" in a Saturday tweet. The Washington Examiner throws one more log on the fire, reporting Senate Judiciary Committee members Ted Cruz and Chuck Grassley previously expressed that they expect a seat to open up this summer. A piece from New Zealand's Stuff calls Kennedy "the man with the weight of America's goofy-shaped democracy on his shoulders," and that points to just how pivotal he has been. CNN frames it like so: "Like no other justice in recent history, Kennedy has cast the vital swing vote in cases that grab the [country's] attention." Among the biggest: Obergefell v. Hodges, which allowed for same-sex marriage nationwide. On the flip side, CNN notes he wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, which axed election spending limits for corporations. Should the retirement announcement come to pass, who might Trump replace him with? Trump addressed that question in a late April interview with the Washington Times, saying he'd pick from the list of candidates he put out during the election. Trump also addressed the Kennedy rumors, saying, "I don’t like talking about it. I've heard the same rumors that a lot of people have heard. And I have a lot of respect for that gentleman, a lot." Read one of the "most powerful" paragraphs written by Kennedy.