Life, Law & Liberty: A Memoir

by Anthony Kennedy

Anthony Kennedy’s journey from an idyllic youth in 1940s Sacramento to service on the highest courts in America.Anthony Kennedy did not take the usual path to a seat on the Supreme Court. Often, the phrase “constitutional lawyer” brings to mind graduates of fine universities engaged in philosophic discourse as they walk the halls of government. Although Kennedy attended Stanford and the London School of Economics and then Harvard Law School, he made his way as a lawyer with a wide-ranging small-town practice that included criminal and civil trials, advice in forming and managing corporations, estate planning, and tax advice. For him, the law was not just an idea but a reality that touches Americans’ lives every day. The nation’s “little c” constitution—community, customs, and mores—proved as important as the “big C” Constitution adopted in 1789. Justice Antonin Scalia’s one-time quip that the law is what “five Ivy-educated constitutional law professors say it is on a given day,” may literally have captured Justice Kennedy—he was an Ivy-educated constitutional law professor. But the comment missed the distinctive background and mindset Justice brought to both the classroom and the bench. Born in Sacramento in 1936, the Irish-Catholic Kennedy grew up in a family active in civic affairs. The bookish youngster served as page in the California State Senate, but the teenager worked summers on oil rigs in Canada, Montana, and Louisiana. He attended Stanford and the London School of Economics, then went east to Harvard Law School. When he returned to Sacramento in 1963, it was to take over his late father’s law practice. It was a busy and rewarding life, taking him into courtrooms and prisons. In addition, his work brought him into contact with the state’s political elite. Kennedy and his wife helped the newly elected governor Ronald Reagan find a house in Sacramento in 1966, and he was in close consultation with those in Reagan’s kitchen cabinet. Then in 1975, Gerald Ford appointed him to the federal judiciary. He was just thirty-eight and the youngest federal appellate court judge in the nation. His life now turned toward Washington, but it was Sacramento that was the making of a consequential jurist. When Kennedy left active service on the Supreme Court in 2018, Justice Neal Gorsuch noted, “As great as Justice Kennedy’s legal legacy may be, I cannot help but wonder if today the person may have as much to teach us as the judge.”

Genres: Nonfiction, Biography, Audiobook, Memoir, Law, Politics, Biography Memoir

352 pages, Hardcover

Published October 14, 2025

About the author

1810-1892

Reviews

[Lorna · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Justice Anthony Kennedy was at the ideological center of a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court for thirty years. Often writing landmark opinions in pivotal cases, he affirmed and redefined liberty for our nation—protecting political speech, upholding a woman’s right to choose, abolishing the death penalty for minors, and legalizing gay marriage.”

And so begins Life, Law & Liberty: A Memoir by Justice Anthony Kennedy. That paragraph on the cover of my book essentially captures the essence of his tenure on the United States Supreme Court. This beautiful memoir is divided into three sections: Part One: Life; Part Two: Law; and Part Three: Liberty. Justice Kennedy writes that his view of the world was shaped by the West where his grandparents had come to the American West from Ireland, seeking adventure and opportunity. And he is proud of his heritage in embracing the Western spirit and where he learned to see people as individuals and tried to understand the common beliefs bringing people together. Justice Kennedy stressed the the West is central to his self-understanding. And the epigraph opening the section of his life in Sacramento, California is as follows:

One cannot be pessimistic about the West. This is the native home of hope. When it fully learns that cooperation, not rugged individualism, is the quality that most characterizes and preserves it, then it will have achieved itself and outlived its origins. Then it has a chance to create a society to match its scenery. — Wallace Stegner

One asks how a devout Catholic, conservative in both temperament and politics deliver some of the most consequential decisions of our time? But what is shown in this memoir is that Justice Kennedy strongly believes that judicial decisions should be arrived at independent of personal politics, preferences and religious beliefs. This belief led him to rulings that were both celebrated and criticized across political lines. In Life, Law & Liberty, Justice Kennedy relates his personal story filled with personal heartbreak and remarkable achievements. And as the book jacket says that as a product of the American West, he became “a deeply principled guardian of the justice, fairness, and liberty our Constitution guarantees.”

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

At a time in our nation's history when two extremes, the "woke" left and the religious right, are tugging at our arms with evangelical zeal in opposite directions, I recommend we wrap both our arms around a copy of Justice Anthony Kennedy's excellent memoir, "Life, Liberty, & Law."

"Tony" Kennedy's jurisprudential center path has more consistency than either extreme, favoring both our freedoms as individuals in private matters, and also our socio-economic freedoms against the intrusions of excessive government authority. This memoir of the last Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed by a unanimous Senate vote is simply told, intended for all of us, and points the way (back) to a less divided, more united America with liberty and justice for all.

Kennedy's story begins with the personal, his father a lawyer, his mother actively involved in the civil life of their Sacramento, California community. Values like civil and moral responsibility, fairness, collegiality, and independence were part of his upbringing. Even the lawyers in town all got along and looked out for one another. When emotional turbulence from an intense series of family losses shakes him, an inner resilience helps him carry on.

Kennedy credits the American West and its independent spirit with his own formation. Today, we associate the West with the "Left Coast", a post-hippie political mindset leaning toward expanded government, but Kennedy's West was one where a neighborly candidate named Ronald Reagen borrowed his land for horseback riding. Like Reagan, Kennedy's West champions individual freedom. A wariness of governmental overreach is part of that spirit of independence.

Justice Kennedy's rise from small city lawyer to the Federal bench is told in small stories. He's asked to teach a course in Constitutional Law by chance, and that piece fits perfectly when a vacancy on the 9th Circuit comes up. One of the cases he judges pits the INS (yes, that INS) against a Mr. Chadha who is on the verge of deportation because of a one-house congressional veto, which Kennedy rules unconstitutional. That story is paid off when Kennedy encounters the grateful litigant (whom he'd never met) years later by chance in a video store. Cute stories (and one not-so-cute one involving a Manson Family member's bail application) populate this highly relatable memoir, and there are moments with many celebrated figures from Putin and Xi to Scalia, Thurgood Marshall, and RBG.

The momentum builds up to part three, the Supreme Court years, and the famous cases which Justice Kennedy decided, forming majority opinions stretching from the late 20th century to the early 21st. Kennedy's approach to these and all cases didn't fall easily into one of the Court's voting blocs, the "originalists" and the "pragmatists." So what did shape his perspective, and inform his judicial introspection?

Because he is highly respectful of confidentiality, we don't get any play-by-play on the Court's deliberations, or even Kennedy's conversations with his clerks. Big principles, however, are discussed at length. Liberty, dignity, the freedoms both enumerated by the Constitution and those fulfilling (without revision) its promises are central. Underlying it all is the fairness and impartiality which is what we all expected from judges at all levels, in clearer thinking times.

Kennedy never even discussed cases with his beloved wife of many years, for fear of impropriety. In fact, Mrs. Kennedy turned down a (much needed) job in the Reagan administration when the couple first moved to Washington, because of the potential for conflict of interest. I think maybe both political parties today would be suspicious of such scrupulous neutrality, and that's exactly why we don't see any more 97-0 confirmation votes.

A pattern of the cases discussed gradually draws out the Kennedy jurisprudence. He actually considers withdrawing from the Court when the teaching of his Catholic faith, which he actively lives, comes into conflict with the Liberty interest of women at stake in the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992) abortion case. But he stays on, and puts his own religious-based convictions aside to rule on the legal matter. Do we honestly believe that all of the recent Dobbs case majority also put their personal convictions aside? Or did they just rationalize? Kennedy, of course, does not comment on any cases subsequent to his departure, but the question is worth considering.

Kennedy talks a lot about dignity in reference to liberty and human rights. So in Romer vs. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) he takes on same sex rights. Down goes discrimination against same-sex couples. Goodbye, state sodomy laws. Hello gay marriage. For Kennedy, our laws evolve with us, just as our nation's laws on slavery had to evolve.

Here's some of what Justice Kennedy wrote in the Obergefell opinion:

"The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed."

So our Consitution wasn't intended to be static, stuck in the manners and mores of the late 18th century.

Slavery eventually went down by Presidential proclamation during war, then by Constitutional Amendments, and of course, after a Civil War. If Justice Kennedy's rulings on our evolving liberties seem like judicial overreach, please don't ask our leaders to put us through all of that instead.

Kennedy is, of course, involved in other areas of concern: free speech in all its forms; the punishments imposed in criminal cases when prisons are overcrowded; and our nation's increasing polarization and ignorance as to how we govern ourselves. He's an important voice for reasoned, respectful conversation and putting ethics above politics -- including within the legal community!

Tony Kennedy's expectations for all of us as citizens are high, as they should be. Reading his autobiography you may sense he's a man of a different time: extremely well read; scrupulously impartial rather than partisan; a responsible gentleman in his personal as well as professional life. When we lose men like this, a society declines. We have already lost quite a bit on the high Court since his departure.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a long time in my youth I wanted to be a lawyer. I am drawn to the organized thinking and arguments involved in legal system. Kennedy's memoir was a wonderful read for me. He is clearly brilliant, and does a nice job telling his personal story, and breaking down his thought process on some of the major cases he ruled on. It was nice to hear a bit about the goings on behind the scenes at the court as well. Recommended.

[Samantha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing though worth the read, as it's always useful to hear firsthand from a justice. Kennedy strikes me as profoundly boring and maddeningly inconsistent. We are, of course, grateful for his decisive votes on some of the most divided political issues of our time -- LGBT rights, abortion, death penalty. But as to HOW he got there? This book sheds little insight other than from the hollow incantation to "know thyself." For any progressive litigator seeking a window into how to persuade conservatively-inclined justices, this book will be a disappointment. Kennedy's literal answer to that question is, in essence, "I knew myself better." "New injustices tend to reveal themselves with time." What that translates to is: social mores changed, and so too did my mind. That is deeply unsatisfying -- even living constitutionalists want to ground legal argument in something more stable, objective, and principled than social mores. Social mores may be the honest answer, true, and maybe Kennedy deserves credit for that. But as a matter of practice, we are tasked with making arguments before judges who need to write an opinion based not in the lofty public ether but in text, in history, in precedent, and in context. That is probably why our most esteemed opinions on social justice issues -- Brown, Obergefell -- are utterly vexing in their legal analysis, as beautiful as they are. They're written in poetry, not prose. Unfortunately, that era of the Court has passed, and litigators need to adapt and figure out how to speak a more technical, principled language.

If anything, Kennedy's book is a nod to an era long past.

____

Growing up in the west taught me, for example, that the creative energies of a great people cannot be realized, unless the realms of economic freedom and personal liberty are respected. It reminded me that central to an individual's claimed personal liberty is the right to fair treatment and to be protected from arbitrary government action. The West reminded me that the most successful business person and the lowest paid worker are each entitled to the basic dignity, dignity that helped Americans build the frontier and continues to help us today.

Young law students might tend to overdo their Socratic inquiries. During my first few months in law school at Harvard, my contracts course was often on my mind. The grocery store sign said, "Apples, ten cents." My reaction was to put two apples on the counter and to give the grocer one dime. He asked for a second dime. Hearing my explanation that the plural word apples indicated otherwise, he raised his eyes heavenward and said, "please help me get through another autumn with first year law students." Law is not severed from common sense.

In the second year of the spring, Dean Griswold was my professor for federal income tax taxation. That spring, the famous Red Sox outfielder Ted Williams was playing baseball for his last year. One of my highest priorities was to see him play at least once. I bought two tickets for an afternoon game. The problem: it was two days before the final examination in Dean Griswold's class. My solution: invite one of my classmates to go, and during any lull in the game, we would prepare for the exam. One of us would bring the casebook, the other a copy of the internal revenue code. The game was about to begin. A commanding voice a few seats behind said, "You do not bring the revenue code to a baseball game." Upon turning around, we were shocked to find the comment to come from Dean Griswold himself. Perhaps he was the one who was shocked. Whetherh e thought bringing the code to Fenway was a profanation of the code or the game is not clear. Probably he deemed it a profanation of both. He remember the incident. Decades later, he would see me in the halls of the Supreme Court and ask, are you still bringing the revenue code to baseball games?

In divorce cases, my role as a counselor included exploring the possibilities of reconciliation. My attempts to refer couples for professional marriage counseling usually were not successful. It was important to indicate to both sides my awareness of the human dimensions of their dispute.

Over the years at our profession, we remember our clients, the transactions we helped to negotiate, and, of course, the trials. We remember the witness who surprised us by lying or by telling the truth. It happens on TV every week, it is only rarely that the witness breaks on cross examination and confesses a false stunt to a transfixed courtroom. That, we do not forget. In the mid 1960s, on a few occasions, 12 angry men was the framework for my closing argument to the jury. My point was that a fascinating aspect of the trial is that a jury can learn not just about the trial, not just about the case, but about himself or herself. My point of view is that the jurors could be better jurors, better people, if they learned about themselves, their biases, their motivations, the source of their strong beliefs, all as a necessary background for deliberations. It was as if the jurors themselves were on trial to see if they knew themselves well enough to be true to their oath.

This was well expressed by Michael Connolly in his novel The Lincoln Lawyer. He notes that "in addition to the well-known standards of conduct unbecoming to an attorney, I was guilty of conduct on becoming myself. And the penalty for that is harder than anything, the state or the Bar could ever throw at me."

My temporary vision hardly made me an expert in describing the disabilities of others, especially considering the realistic hope that my site would be restored; but it was giving me even more admiration for those who face these challenges each day. And it likely was significant when I came to the bench. All personal experiences informed and broaden your jurisprudence. This experience gave me the awareness of a world out there that is fascinating, even when understood their senses other than sight.

There is, as we see in the courts continued jurisprudence, a zone of liberty, zone of protection, a line that is drawn where we can tell the government: beyond this line, you may not go. The great question in constitutional law has been where the line is drawn. But there is a line, even for an originalist like Justice Scalia. Over time, we gain a better understanding of the extent of ideas such as liberty. This does not mean that it is for each person to define those terms for himself or herself--which is known as moral relativism, and in my view is unwise and dangerous. Relativism is embraced by some as a way of ensuring that we do not transgress the right of others to believe as they wish. This view invokes the concept of tolerance. Tolerance is a noble goal underlying and defining some of our most central constitutional doctrine and helps to define the central idea of freedom. But it is a concept more difficult and practice that might be thought at first. Tolerance must have its limits, lest it morph into boundless, moral relativism, which underlined a very goal of tolerance: a decent society in which the constitution and the rule of law treat all with dignity and equality. Though the line between tolerance and moral relativism can be difficult to walk, it is imperative to strive to do so.

The development of my legal view on the issue of gay rights began in the mid 1960s, when the subject was raised in my constitutional law course. These classes had as many as 120 students. The subject of gay rights began to arise as my constitutional law class continued over the years. My awareness of the subject thus begin earlier than for someone in our profession. The legal system had yet to confront the key issues regarding same-sex relationships, but in our public and civic discourse, we would begin to find injustices that many had not yet understood.

The Loving case reached the Supreme Court. The court held the ban on marriage among different races was unconstitutional. A student might ask, should this right not also be given to gay people? The law, in the 1960s, it was simply not there yet, nor was my own thinking.

For those of us unpersuaded by originalism and its rigidity, the views of the framers of the constitution, or, to take another example, the drafters and proponents of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, are a proper starting point in constitutional analysis. But the meaning of the constitution does not end there. The definition of liberty requires us to acknowledge that some essential human rights are recognized only over the course of time. Those rights exist to enable others to enter our culture in society without laws or government policies hostile to these principles in Romer.

After our reconciliation conversation, we had to go back to work. Neither of us is big on hugging, but we hugged, both of us smiling. Our parting words remain in my memory. Those parting words were the last we ever spoke to each other. A little over a week later, his wife Maureen telephoned us around the dinner hour. She had just received a word that Nino had died in Texas. Then Maureen, in effect, said, "Tony, the one one reason I called you right away is to say this: a week or so ago, when Nino was getting ready to leave for Texas, he came home to dinner. He was happier than he had been in months. He told me it was because of your conversation together. He was still excited and joyous when he left for his trip. Thank you." If friendships are slipping away, we must renew them soon, lest time does not permit us to celebrate them for long.

Abortion is a very difficult subject, and each person must explore it for themselves. It is not for judges to rule on the personal morality of a choice, but rather on the permissibility of it under our constitution. And our constitution underscores the importance of thoughtful, rational, decent decisions, made by individuals and families without interference from the government.

Those of us people believe abortion is a moral wrong should work to persuade women and men that this is so, and that the women protects the dignity of life by giving birth, but our view should not control. The power to persuade--but not to coerce--is what free speech and an open and decent society should be about.

The two death penalty cases illustrate the importance of the continued self reflection required for a judge to truly truly to know himself or herself. The judge must always, in fairness to the litigants, be willing to consider principles and approaches that may offer new insights over the passage of time.

We thus come again to the question: after Stanford, why the changed outcome in Roper? Despite some changes in involving decency standards, perhaps my first conclusion was just plain wrong. There is a saying: a carpenter should measure twice, but cut just once. Did the opinions in Stanford and Roper cut twice? Or perhaps the constitution's meaning was further disclosed over time. New insight can reveal past injustice. And in other areas of the law, judges, and the nation as well, have found the constitution may yield new insights, enabling us to see a wrong and injustice not earlier grasped. Think of racial segregation before Brown vs. Board of Education. The difference in the outcome in Stanford and Roper stemmed, too, from my own ongoing understanding of the role of the court. Stanford was decided in just my second year on the court and Roper sixteen years later. Constant study in the intervening years led me to a greater appreciation of the primacy of human dignity and constitutional the progression of my thinking. From Stanford to Roper regarding dignity and the cruel and unusual punishment clause illustrates how the judicial process can be both demanding and rewarding--like much human thought that proceeds action.

As mentioned, judges must know ourselves. Judges, and everyone, must always ask why they are about to take a certain course or reach a certain conclusion. And doing so, they must ask who they are.

High ethical standards must insist upon independence from political interventions or pressures. Judges must not be threatened with adverse consequences or retaliation for their ruling. And interpreting the law, the judges must be guided by what truth and justice dictate after all the parties are properly heard. Judge is the responsibility to ensure they do not make rules for arbitrary or improper. This does not mean, of course, that each judge is free to define his or her own ethical standards. If that were the case, we would exempt ourselves from the very principles we enforced against others. Definite, specific standards of moral and ethical behavior are essential in human undertakings. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that the appearance can soon become the reality. Judges do not maintain both the reality and the appearance of neutrality, small deviations can soon become the accepted norm, in this undermine respect for the law.

[Emily Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is divided into three parts. Slightly less than half of this book is devoted to the events in Justice Kennedy's life. Many of those events were national in nature and some were personal. These events included, for example: his time as a page in the California Senate, the time when Justice Kennedy’s home and his mother’s home was ransacked and vandalized and the detectives suspected the followers of Charles Manson, the death of President Kennedy, the great fire, the great earthquake, and the fact that, at age 41, he was the only surviving member of his childhood family. Both his parents had died of heart issues. His sister had died of cancer, and his brother had died in a surfing accident. The second part of the book includes Justice Kennedy's time teaching law school and being in private practice. The third part of the book discusses controversial cases and issues he faced and gives a glimpse of how he thinks about these issues and what factors most influenced his decisions. The book is written for people with no background in the law, such that things are explained, like 'how does the court of appeals differ from trial courts,' or 'what is senior status for judges,' etc. I received an advanced reader digital arc from the publisher.

[Bargain Sleuth Book Reviews · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thanks to NetGalley and Simon & Schuster for the digital copy of this book; I am leaving this review voluntarily.

I read a biography of Sandra Day O’Conner a few years ago and came to admire the woman, despite being appointed by the man who started the downfall of our country, Ronald Reagan. Would Anthony Kennedy come across the same way (also a Reagan appointee)? Let’s see.

Seeing as this is a memoir and not a biography, we only have Kennedy’s word on his life and law career, culminating in becoming a Supreme Court Justice. The book is split into thirds: Kennedy’s life before becoming a lawyer, his life as a lawyer and judge, and the final third discusses some cherry-picked cases he helped rule on.

Kennedy sat on the court from 1988 to 2018. The publisher’s blurb above called him the swing vote. The biography I read on Sandra Day O’Conner called HER the swing vote. For every swing vote Kennedy mentions, he fails to mention the one ruling that has single-handedly ruined our democracy: Citizens United, which ruled that corporations are people, and since they are people, they can donate millions into campaigns. How does that sit with you now, Justice Kennedy?

[Zac Muncy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Masterclass in the Meaning of Liberty

This is a deeply thoughtful and beautifully written memoir by one of the most consequential Supreme Court justices of our time. Life, Law & Liberty is not just the story of Anthony Kennedy’s life — it’s a reflection on what it means to live in a society governed by the rule of law and guided by the principles of freedom and dignity.

I consider myself fairly well-versed in American history and constitutional interpretation, but I still learned something new in every chapter. Justice Kennedy’s writing is clear, elegant, and deeply human — qualities that mirror his judicial opinions. The book provides fascinating insight into landmark cases, the inner workings of the Court, and the personal philosophy that shaped his decisions.

It’s a long read, but well worth every page. Kennedy doesn’t just recount his career; he invites readers to think critically about the balance between individual liberty and civic responsibility. This is an essential book for anyone who cares about law, history, or the ongoing American experiment in democracy.

[African Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm sure most readers will leave professional reviews about the contents of this book. I prefer to gush about one aspect I loved: it is infused with what Professor Harold Bloom called 'literary love'.

Anthony Kennedy is an authentic reader (I mean really, you can't even imagine how much of a delight it was seeing him seamlessly quote, among others, Walt Whitman here). It is therefore unsurprising that his judicial decisions were littered with his concern for liberty, the natural result of engaging with the highest forms of literature. When we read Hamlet, when we read fiction, we step into the lives of others. We feel what they feel, and begin to appreciate the value of every single human being. This Justice Kennedy did, and America saw the fruits of that in his Opinions.

Some agree with most of what Kennedy held. Others are ambivalent. I'm certain he had his fair share of unrelenting critics too. In writing this review, I just want to thank the man for his commitment to justice, even where I disagreed with how he defined it.

[Isaac · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not a big reader of biographies or memoirs, but I enjoyed this by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. I learned a lot about what it takes to get to the Court and what their work is like. The book is a fine window into this somewhat secretive aspect of American jurisprudence. I have more respect for those sitting on the nation's highest court after reading this.

Not everyone will agree with Kennedy, but he describes his thought processes in supporting several controversial opinions during his tenure, especially those that conflicted with his Catholic faith. It's got to be daunting making such decisions.

What I appreciated most was hearing of the collegiality that has prevailed on the Court (and I hope still does). While the rest of government bickers and insults each other, posturing for power and influence, the Supreme Court is forced to reckon with ideas and principles. It seems the most pure aspect of our federal government, and I'm thankful the Founders set us up with this system.

[Joshua John · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. He is a fascinating, dignified justice. He had real judicial philosophy and values which clearly comes through in his judicial opinions as well as this book. He clearly explained the law and his reasoning behind it in this work as well, which I appreciated a lot.

My biggest criticism is of the chapter on abortion. While I think he provided enough legal reasoning to support his opinion in Planned Parenthood versus Casey, the same cannot be said for the case that comes after. He clearly seemed to rely on his feelings rather than legal reasoning to come to that conclusion.

My favorite part of the book was when he described his falling out with justice Scalia after Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell. It was very interesting to read how Scalia‘s friendship with the others had dissipated after the Obergefell opinion. But it was especially beautiful to hear that these two titans of American law reconciled their friendship days prior to Scalia‘s passing.

Incredible story, incredible life.

[Randal White · Rating 3 out of 5]

I respect the thoughtfulness, the morals, the calm and dignified manner of Justice Kennedy. It was interesting reading his memoir, especially his history on the Supreme Court. I wish he would have given us a peak behind the closed doors of their deliberations, but then, that just would not be Justice Kennedy. I imagine that Kennedy will be the last of the old guard, as today it seems the Court has turned into a partisan slug fest. I did not find the book to be one that was hard to put down, if anything, I found it to be a bit ponderous. Thanks to NetGalley for an advance ARC of this book.

[Emmet Sullivan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mostly good. Hard to imagine any current Justice writing a memoir as civil as this, but that inevitably makes it somewhat plain at times. The best parts were the reflections on his relationships with Reagan & Scalia. Lots of stuff (some interesting) on international law; if that’s your thing, you’ll be pleased.

[S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

very interesting and insightful. feels like sitting down with grandpa for hours listening to stories about his life. great insights that humanize the Supreme Court justices. while tone is very fair minded and logical, definitely very privileged.

[JXR · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting memoir by Justice Kennedy, and the chat about but many of his discussion falls flat at the state the court is currently in. 3 stars. tysm for the arc.

[Jess · Rating 4 out of 5]

Charmingly written. Adds insight into his thought processes for many decisions.

[Jeff J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some interesting insights from the former Supreme Court justice.

[Linda Robertson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Goodread

[Scott]

Mostly boring and superficial, but the parts that are not are totally fascinating and worthwhile. I respect Justice Kennedy.

[Dennis C. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terrific insight to Justice Kennedy's background forming his character and approach to the law, his history in the legal profession, and his perspective on being a Supreme Court Justice.

A must read for anyone interested in U.S. history, the justice system, or wanting to learn more about one of the most important people in from the end of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st.