This article gives some great background information on this issue and walks a fair and fact based balance. There is little, if any, commentary or opinion that shows up in this piece.

"handing President Trump and the GOP Senate an opportunity to shift the nation’s high court to the right for decades." That's opinion and it's not listed under editorial or opinion. It's laughable to even think a court made up of all corporate lawyers who consistently rule in favor of corporate power over consumers, deny standing in order to not hear cases having to do with civil liberties, etc... can move any further to the right or that it matters when it comes to societies actual problems. Within the story itself the author describes how the neoliberal yet Republican Reagan appointed Kennedy who ended up ruling down the middle except when it comes to MIC/surveilence state and corporate consolidation and complete deregulation and austerity of the neoliberal agenda. People have to start asking themselves why is this being covered the way that it is ? Why is there no one questioning the state of the (not so)supreme court that allows corporations to be considered people and to have their bribes considered free speech. Did anyone notice which rulings were left out of this piece ? Why would they leave out some of the most important rulings in this countries history and focus on solely domestic issues ? Why is there no mention of how this or any of the Justices ruled on Citizens United or how they dodged ruling on section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA which allows the MIC to drop a bomb every 12 minutes or assassinate anyone they want anywhere on the planet without a trial or even a warrant. Framing or context is paramount in an actual "free press" industry. This means not writing fluff pieces that ignore controversial subjects which may or may not be the authors decision but perhaps that of the editors or even advertisers.

Simply a review of the facts of the situation. There doesn't seem to be any kind of political agenda behind it.

Although The Hill would clearly like to see a left-leaning judge step in to fill Kennedy's spot on the Supreme Court, the article does a fair job presenting the facts of the current situation and Kennedy's past decisions.