Posted on 12/03/2006 1:04:49 PM PST by wagglebee
Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."
Breyer, a Clinton appointee who has brokered many of the high court's 5-4 rulings, spoke in a televised interview that aired one day before justices hear a key case on race in schools. He said judges must consider the practical impact of a decision to ensure democratic participation.
"We're the boundary patrol," Breyer said, reiterating themes in his 2005 book that argue in favor of race preferences in university admissions because they would lead to diverse workplaces and leadership.
"It's a Constitution that protects a democratic system, basic liberties, a rule of law, a degree of equality, a division of powers, state, federal, so that no one gets too powerful," said Breyer, who often votes with a four-member liberal bloc of justices.
On Monday, the court will hear arguments in a pair of cases involving integration plans in K-12 schools. The legal challenge, which is backed by the Bush administration, could be among the most significant school cases since the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954 banned racial segregation.
In 2003, the court upheld race-conscious admissions in higher education in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
O'Connor, however, has since retired and been replaced by conservative Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Antonin Scalia, meanwhile, has denounced the use of race in school admissions as lacking any support in the Constitution.
In his interview, Breyer argued that in some cases it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution because phrases such as "freedom of speech" are vague. Judges must look at the real-world context — not focus solely on framers' intent, as Scalia has argued — because society is constantly evolving, he said.
"Those words, 'the freedom of speech,' 'Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech' — neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet," Breyer said.
Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties.
Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy who isn't tied to special interests.
"You don't want one person's speech, that $20 million giver, to drown out everybody else's. So if we want to give a chance to the people who have only $1 and not $20 million, maybe we have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money," he said.
Breyer, who has voted to uphold abortion rights, declined to comment on the court's role in deciding abortion. Justices this term are considering the constitutionality of so-called "partial-birth" abortion in a case some conservatives hope will be used to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
"The more the precedent has been around, the more people rely on it, the more secure it has to be," he said.
Breyer commented on "Fox News Sunday," in an interview taped last week.
" If the law is on the side of the little guy, I will vote for the little guy. If the law is on the side of the big guy, I will vote for the big guy.
That is what the rule of law is."
Gosh! What a statement coming from a man that at times is the single swing vote on so many things. He wants to protect the little guy from the big guy while in reality Justice Breyer is himself the 300 lb. gorilla mandating his way of thinking upon the whole country. He's the unlimate "big guy", the person who all by himself is super "powerful". He is so powerful that he can throw out his own employment agreement (The US Constitution) and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
he is sick!
And, I'm really grateful for that...
Note to Breyer: Ask your Chief Justice what the heck your proper role is.
I guess Breyer will be voting for Hussein Obama in the 2008 election.
Someone should read the Constitution to him. No where is the word "democracy" or any derivation thereof used.
ah, I see. so if you don't like what is there, make it up. That is exactly what our founding fathers had in mind. < /sarcasm >
If it's not his job to follow the Constitution then it's time for him to find another job.
I quote article 3, section 3 of the Constitution when I say, "of"
Impeach the buffoon, NOW!
In the minds of leftists judges (like Breyer) "when necessary" happens every other seconds.
If I sue the powerful SCOTUS justice Stephen Breyer, will the SCOTUS make sure that I win?
>"no one gets too powerful."
In other words, no purpose for a majority since majority cannot rule, only the courts can rule.
As Justice Scalia and others have correctly pointed out, when "We the People" determine that the Constitution needs to be amended, then "We the People" are empowered to do so. There is NO Constitutional provision for the Supreme Court to amend or alter the Constitution in any way whatsoever.
Sadly, that won't happen.
HF
And they find the same vagueness in the wording of the 2nd amendment, invariably interpreting it to mean that individuals don't have the right to keep and bear arms, only the state does.
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.