Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breyer's Big Idea: The Justice’s vision for a progressive revival on the Supreme Court.
The New Yorker ^ | Jeffrey Toobin

Posted on 10/23/2005 7:52:28 AM PDT by Crackingham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

1 posted on 10/23/2005 7:52:29 AM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

--b--


2 posted on 10/23/2005 8:02:46 AM PDT by rellimpank (urbanites don' t understand the cultural deprivation of not being raised on a farm:NRABenefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
In April, the Harvard Law School professor and veteran Supreme Court litigator Laurence H. Tribe announced that he would not complete a new edition of his mammoth treatise on constitutional law, which was originally published in 1978, because so many precedents that had once seemed settled now appear at risk of being overruled.

By precedent I assume he means judicial legislation.

3 posted on 10/23/2005 8:03:09 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

"The Constitution not only sets limits on official power, Breyer asserts; it insures the right of ordinary citizens to shape the workings of government"

Law students are taught that there are 3 basic rules in statutory construction: read the statute; read the statute; read the statute. Law is not rocket science and the US Constitution is not a penumbra. When elaborate intellectual contortions are applied to devise some elusive 'true meaning', the document is subjected to torture that be turned around to justify slavery, tyranny and despotism.


4 posted on 10/23/2005 8:06:17 AM PDT by Spok (Est omnis de civilitate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Breyer is an insult to the Constitution.


5 posted on 10/23/2005 8:06:47 AM PDT by hauerf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

When democrats picks a liberal to be a Supreme Court Justice they get one.


6 posted on 10/23/2005 8:10:01 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
By precedent I assume he means judicial legislation.

Has Professor Tribe ever heard of Dredd Scott?

7 posted on 10/23/2005 8:12:39 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
In Bush v. Gore, a 7–2 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. The Democrats (which includes the media) always try to ignore that fact.

When you can't win at the ballot box, you try to win through the courts. The Democrats may finally lose control of the courts. Like a cornered wild animals, they are going to put up one hell of a fight.

8 posted on 10/23/2005 8:12:44 AM PDT by kennedy ("Why would I listen to losers?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
In the weeks after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bush v. Gore, on December 12, 2000, the mood was despondent in the chambers of the Justices on the losing side. The five-to-four ruling ended the recount of the Presidential vote in Florida and assured George W. Bush’s victory in the election. “The clerks were tremendously alienated,” one recalled recently. “A lot of them thought that the Court was a fraud, that the place had sacrificed its legitimacy, and that there really wasn’t much point in taking the whole institution seriously anymore.”

There were two votes, not just the five to four vote. In a 7-2 per curiam opinion, the court ordered that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in Florida was to be stopped due to lacking a consistent standard. The court further declared, in a 5-4 vote, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors.

The MSM likes to ignore the 7 to 2 vote because it demolishes the myth that SCOTUS gave Bush the election based on partisan motives. In fact, Bush would have won anyway because the Florida legislature was prepared to give Bush the electoral votes and the GOP controlled House of Reps would have done likewise.

9 posted on 10/23/2005 8:14:02 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kennedy

You beat me to it.


10 posted on 10/23/2005 8:14:37 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hauerf
A period of conservative hegemony on the Court seems a real possibility.

The biggest fear of the left is the best hope for our country.

11 posted on 10/23/2005 8:15:39 AM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Spok
When elaborate intellectual contortions are applied to devise some elusive 'true meaning', the document is subjected to torture that be turned around to justify slavery, tyranny, abortion, and despotism.

That's better.

12 posted on 10/23/2005 8:20:36 AM PDT by Mogollon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Breyer should be impeached.

There are no Constitutional conservatives in the House unless there is a motion to impeach Breyer on the table. There is no majority of conservatives in the House until Breyer is impeached. Until Breyer is impeached the Senate is irrelevant and members of the House that believe the opinion of the Senate is relevant before Breyer is impeached are not conservative.

The reality is that the Constitution is irrelevant as long as anyone believes that it is a political document subject to majority rule. People who accept the idea that the Constitution is subject to the political process do not understand the theory of our government as opposed to the present reality. When we abandon all pretext of being a Constitutional republic and become a democracy, there will be no reason for conservatives to consider living in proximity with socialists.

If the Constitution becomes purely a political instrument as Breyer advocates, the glue that holds the union together will quickly dissolve and there will be absolutely nothing to prevent a civil war.

13 posted on 10/23/2005 8:25:30 AM PDT by Reaganghost (Democrats are living proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
the Harvard Law School professor

At least Clinton had the fortitude to nominate the best liberal(s) he could to the bench. We don't need a yes woman; we need someone who can forcefully articulate and aggressively promote conservative principles.

14 posted on 10/23/2005 8:28:32 AM PDT by lemura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Great minds think alike. ;-)

I think it is important to bring it up every time there is a discussion about Bush v. Gore. The Democrats and their media are trying hard to rewrite history. If you repeat a lie often enough most people will eventually accept it as the truth.

The fact is that 7 out of 9 Justices recognized that what the Democrats were trying to do in Florida was unconstitutional. The majority included O'Connor, Souter and Breyer. Only the two most left wing partisans on the Court, Ginsburg and Stevens, refused to acknowledge the travesty that the Democrats were attempting in Florida. It is a fact that the Democrats really, really don't like.

15 posted on 10/23/2005 8:29:19 AM PDT by kennedy ("Why would I listen to losers?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
In September, Breyer published “Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution,” a manifesto for a progressive revival in American jurisprudence. The book, which is a hundred and sixty-one pages long, was inspired in part by Breyer’s disdain for the method of constitutional interpretation championed by his principal ideological rivals on the Court, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

This illustrates the problem with the Miers' nomination in a nutshell.

Breyer, although dangerously wrong and malinformed in the direction he wants to lead the nation through the mechanism of judicial legislating, is unquestionably highly intelligent, well written, and knows the field of battle extremely well. He is an idea man, and ideas have consquences.

Against this malevolent power (and three just like him on the SCOTUS) Bush proposes to send borderlne illiterate Harriet Miers, a nominee openly extolled by her FR defenders for her nonexistent preparation, woeful constitutional disinterest, and lack of any meaningful qualifications apart from lackluster service in elected honofiric positions such as state bar president.

It would be a more equal fight to send a sock puppet up to do battle with Godzilla.

And no, Miers is not brave fresh-faced David facing a heavily armored and battle scarred Goliath. Miers is a 60 year old social worker wannabe who, if she were in David's sandals, would still be strugging to understand the physics of a sling.

16 posted on 10/23/2005 8:30:49 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
The Constitution not only sets limits on official power, Breyer asserts; it insures the right of ordinary citizens to shape the workings of government. “

Through the legislative and referendum process, ordinary citizens participate in the workings of government. But then judges like Breyer overturn the will of the people.

17 posted on 10/23/2005 8:31:20 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Liberal activist judges like Breyer continually assert that the Constitution only means what THEY say it means based on the chic political correctness of the day. They try to pretend that the document does NOT include any mechanism for its own amendment.

And for all the blather about "informed participation in the electoral process", it rings awfully hollow considering all the recent elections, particularly state propositions, that Breyer and his liberal brethren have nullified across the country with a single stroke of the pen. Basically, Breyer is a sneak and a brazen liar. I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt that he is merely self-deluded.


18 posted on 10/23/2005 8:38:06 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
In order to characterize his view on what the American founders intended, Stephen Breyer has to resort to a wornout cliche from a French politician. Pretty much sums up his miserable unethical incompetence.

Too bad he can suck down French political swill but never had time to read the prolific writing of the Founders. If he had, he wouldn't have to "guess" at their intent. What a steaming pile from Hahvahd Yahd.

19 posted on 10/23/2005 8:41:52 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
By precedent I assume he means judicial legislation.

That is exactly what Tribe means. Thank God his time has passed. Unfortunately, there's plenty more egomaniacal liberal activist scumbags where he came from.

20 posted on 10/23/2005 8:47:23 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson