Moderately conservative, though rejecting of out-and-out judicial activism.

American Historical Association

"The First Amendment protects speech, both civil and uncivil. It does so for good reason. The United States made a wager that democracy can flourish only with a robustly open public sphere where conflicting opinions can vigorously engage one another. Such a public sphere rests on the recognition that speech on matters of public concern is often emotional and that it employs a variety of idioms and styles. Hence American law protects not only polite discourse but also vulgarity, not only sweet rationality but also impassioned denunciation. 'Civility' is a laudable ideal, and many of us wish that American public life had more of it today. Indeed the AHA recommends it as part of our own Statement on the Standards of Professional Conduct. But imposing the requirement of “civility” on speech in a university community or any other sector of our public sphere—and punishing infractions—can only backfire. Such a policy produces a chilling effect, inhibiting the full exchange of ideas that both scholarly investigation and democratic institutions need."

American Historical Association, Letter of Concern to University of Illinois Chancellor Regarding Salaita Case (2014)

Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"Ideologues on all sides invoke hate speech as if it's some sort of ironclad classification—as if obviously their side's speech is protected, neutral commentary, while the other's side's speech is clearly different, dangerous, full of secret biases and malicious intent. But "hate" is in the eye of the beholder. In practice, the distinction between hate speech and acceptable discourse necessarily turns on a million subjective value judgements. And the subjective nature of determining hate speech makes it a useful weapon for stifling dissent."

Steven Salaita and the Tyranny of 'Hate Speech', Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason

On Anthony Kennedy

"Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, has always been a bit of a wild card.

'When he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, The New York Times noted that he had "basically conservative leanings" but was viewed by Republicans as not conservative enough. Many legal experts, like Walker, now view him as a libertarian and a fan of federalism."

Erin Fuchs, Justice Kennedy's Former Clerk Explains Why He Thinks His Old Boss Killed The Defense Of Marriage Act, Business Insider (June 28, 2013)

John O. McGinnis

"The key to Justice ­Kennedy's votes, Mr. Colucci says, is his moral ­reading of the Constitution: He sees the document as an unfolding story of ever greater individual liberty. Thus he ­opposes laws that abridge sexual ­freedom, including laws against homosexual conduct. If an originalist reading of the Constitution does not reveal such a liberty—relying on the received meaning of the ­Constitution's words at the time they were written—Justice Kennedy's moral ­reading does. But he is skeptical of race-conscious ­programs, too, because they treat applicants as members of a group rather than as individuals who possess the right to be free from group-based policies or rules."

John O. McGinnis, The Decider, Wall Street Journal (August 27, 2009)