and Arsène Posted on 03/22/2007 6:20:21 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker
This man, little known to the general public, is one of the most influential in the United States. This is by design. Stephen Breyer is one of the nine members of the Supreme Court, the highest judicial body, the decisions of which deeply alter American society, from ending racial segregation to legalizing abortion, to file-sharing on the Internet and even electing a President.
The traditional image of a Supreme Court judge is one of a noble figure, wearing a black robe and not very public. Stephen Breyer carries his 68 years like someone in his fifties, regularly jogging and cycling. A judge of the Supreme Court is discreet, even mute. But Justice Breyer, as one introduces members of the Supreme Court, likes to talk. This former law professor has a long history of debating and confrontations with the public.
He can be inexhaustible in discussing decisions that he made or could not take. He is also quite used to the technique of avoiding the most hot-button issues or current cases before the Court. He excuses himself in advance of a meeting, taking shelter in his duty to be reserved, or he gets out of a spot with a pirouette: "You noticed that I didn't talk about abortion in my book."
He talks of the law and his interpretation. It's a national sport in Washington, and a subject of political conflict in an America where opinions are radicalized between liberals (the left) and conservatives. The crossroads of this conflict is the Supreme Court. The most significant decisions (Guantanamo, the end of the 2000 Florida vote recount) are often decided by a five-to-four majority. Stephen Breyer is located on the left wing of the Court.
To conservatives, he has many defects. He was nominated by Bill Clinton, worked with Senator Ted Kennedy, finds himself opposed to the majority on questions of society and puts great emphasis on interpretations of the law rather than a strict reading of the text. He also draws arguments from other legal systems and speaks very good French. He likes Simenon and Arsène
Lupin so much that he reads their original text. He just finished reading The Charerhouse of Parma [la Chartreuse de Parme ], but acknowledges having cracked in the middle of Bouvard et Péruchet .
His friend Robert Badinter sees in him, "the best of what American culture and justice can produce."
"He's a universalist" he continues, "who believes that the law in one country should evolve by using the jurisprudence from other courts." For Stuart Taylor, a specialist on judicial questions at the Brookings Institution in Washington, "One can regard him as the leader of the Court's liberal wing, even if none of the three other [Justices] can be portrayed as one of his followers." Stuart Taylor also insists that Breyer has a side that is
"not very doctrinaire." Stephen Breyer is a man of conciliation. He always hopes to convince. He regularly debates his colleague, conservative alter ego and dark force for the American left, Antonin Scalia, before students and cameras. Their opinions are radically opposed on most subjects.
From this opposition Stephen Breyer wrote a book Active Liberty (Pour une démocratie active éd. Odile Jacob, 230 p., 25,50€) which plunges the reader, as rarely before, into the decision-making process of a judge. Is it necessary to stick to the letter of the text, or interpret its spirit? For him, not only is the law and the text of the Constitution not settled, but it is necessary to try and take into account for the intentions of legislators when applying a law to a contemporary case.
When in doubt, he addresses himself directly to founding Fathers like James Madison . "Let’s take the example of positive discrimination" he explains. He turns slightly to his left and addresses an imaginary mediator: "Mister Madison, is the purpose of this amendment, to exclude distinctions based on race, to include citizens or exclude them?"
"He tells me that I'm right: absolute equality under law can lead to the opposite result: the non-integration of Blacks in universities or in the military hierarchy."
How does one become a member of the Supreme Court? Stephen Breyer has a few genetic dispositions. His father was a lawyer, his brother is a lawyer. The first was a lawyer in San Francisco, the second a federal judge. The career of Breyer was traditional: Legal studies (Stanford), professor at Harvard, judge at the Court of Appeals, first nominated by Jimmy Carter.
In 1993, he is received by Bill Clinton when a vacancy opened at the Supreme Court. The President finally chose Ruth Ginsburg. But Breyer would only have to wait another year before a new opportunity arose. The second time, the President was content to call him without meeting with him again. "The TV stations had already announced my nomination," he recalls.
Born in San Francisco, he was the child of an old Jewish family on the West coast, who went to public school and then to Stanford in the 1950s. He was deeply impressed by the struggle to end segregation. At the beginning of the 1960s, he get to know the Supreme Court where he clerked for Justice Arthur Goldberg at a moment when, "the mission was to dismantle segregation." He then worked with team investigating Watergate, which led to the resignation of President Nixon, "in a minor role" he adds.
From this period he draws a simple lesson: "When all is going wrong, there is this resilience that allows this country to react and restore and improve its institutions, as has occurred during other difficult moments for our country."
He has a profound faith in democracy and the balance of power: "The Supreme Court has rendered three rulings on Guantanamo. Each time, the American government lost. Bin Laden’s driver sued President Bush and it is the President who lost." For him, this is quite simply, "the rule of law," and not a political issue. "If I think as an idealogue, I am wrong."
In the case of Bush v. Gore , the most discussed decision of the Court in recent years, which stopped the vote recount in Florida and allowed the election of George W. Bush in 2000, he voted with the minority.
"I was disappointed but I justified my decision by telling myself that I would do the same had the situation been the other way around [if Bush was seeking a recount]. I believe my colleagues adopted the same attitude."
It isn't known if any of them spoke to James Madison about it.
Breyer is just another activist judge who bastardizes the Supreme Court with its legislative rulings.
Yah. OK. I can see it...the French like him. Which means he has beady, shifty eyes and bears watching at all times.
Is this like "Force Ten From Navarone"? Harrison Ford was really lukewarm in that film.
Justice Breyer? Tower of jello. What a guy.
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.