Posted on 09/21/2010 11:29:15 PM PDT by thecodont
The United States Supreme Court likes its mystery: Cases are argued in public, briefs are available for all to read, but its real work is carried out in conferences attended by the nine justices alone. So private are those deliberations that in the rare instances when they are interrupted, it is by a knock on the door; the junior justice, by tradition, answers, is passed a note, closes the door, and then delivers the news to the brethren.
It's thus a bit surprising — and refreshing — to have a sitting member of the court produce a book examining its work. And yet, Justice Stephen Breyer has written not one but two illuminating treatises that thoughtfully place the court in the larger context of American democracy. His latest, "Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View," extends his public ruminations with what are becoming his hallmarks: wisdom, modesty, incisiveness and a touch of naiveté.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
In the article, the two most junior members of SCOTUS are conspicuous by their absence.
And what democracy would that be?
Congress shall make no law? (I think it had to do with a protest against the Victory Mosque — or was it about citizens criticizing elected scum within 60 days?)
Ditto X 3
(Not bothering to read the article) ...
Ditto
I think the timing of the book review article is interesting in light of Breyer’s recent remarks (and later backtracking) on the Koran burning/First Amendment freedoms.
Me too.
Ditto on the “Democracy” comments, ditto on “not reading
the MSM item”. ... The Constitution *does* require a
Supreme Court, if not other federal judges. Not too long
ago I thought one avenue shutting down SCOTUS nonsense
would be to forbid them to employ law clerks.
My first instinct was to LOL, but you might be onto something.
Make them do their own research.
Of course, they’re already in “case overload” as is.
You might consider sending your idea to Ann Coulter.
AH— wasn’t it Breyer who said “original Intent” cannot be
known. That his peers on the bench who quote the history ,and
the authors of our Constitution still can’t say what they
intended us to understand about their work. I seems to recall
something along those lines a few years back. And Breyer was always bigger on including foreign law as usurping our Constitution was he not?
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.