The legacy of former President John F. Kennedy and the judicial impact of his Supreme Court justices has been a topic of discussion for many years. Kennedy’s tenure on the Supreme Court was short, lasting only a few years before his assassination in 1963. But during that time, Kennedy’s Supreme Court appointments included two of the most influential jurists of the 20th century – Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Douglas. Their decisions and opinions had a major influence on the shaping of American law and society for the ensuing decades.
In recent years, though, the legacy of Kennedy’s Supreme Court appointees has been challenged. This challenge has come not only from those outside of the court, but from within as well. Specifically, Kennedy’s former Supreme Court clerks have come under scrutiny, having their own highly divergent views of the court’s legacy. These views, which often clash with that of their former boss, are now starting to chip away at Kennedy’s legacy.
One of the foremost critics of Kennedy’s Supreme Court legacy is former clerk and Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe. Tribe has consistently defended the liberal decisions of the Warren court, while at the same time attacking the conservative majority of the current court. Tribe’s criticism has been widely discussed in the press and has provided fuel for other critics of the Kennedy court.
Tribe is not alone in his criticism of Kennedy’s legacy. Other prominent former clerks, such as Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan, have also weighed in on the issue. Karlan has criticized Kennedy’s court for its decision in the Griswold v. Connecticut case, which legalized the use of birth control. She has also been highly critical of the court’s rulings in Roe v. Wade and other decisions.
In essence, the legacy of the Kennedy court is being debated and reevaluated through the views of those who worked for him. There is no question that Kennedy’s Supreme Court appointments made an indelible impact on American society and law, but the question of whether that legacy is being adequately maintained is now the subject of heated debate.
Kennedy’s former clerks are making it clear that they have varying and even conflicting views on what the legacy of Kennedy’s Supreme Court means. That debate will continue as long as the Kennedy court’s decisions remain contentious, and as long as its legacy remains a subject of debate.