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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court's Breyer speaks on judges' role (Living Document)
Associated Press ^ | April 5, 2011 | NOMAAN MERCHANT

Posted on 04/06/2011 4:59:03 AM PDT by John.Galt2012

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer argued Tuesday that judges need to apply the Constitution's values with an eye toward the changing times

The 72-year-old Breyer, considered one of the court's more liberal justices, believes that the court should apply the Constitution's values with a pragmatic view toward present circumstances, rather than focusing only on the document's historical meaning.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitution; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
I wonder if Justice Breyer would agree the Constitution contains within it the means to "modernize it" and if it does, why doesn't he recommend that Congress Amend it accordingly vs. using judicial opinion to do so. That would legitimize the process instead of making it political or shady.
1 posted on 04/06/2011 4:59:08 AM PDT by John.Galt2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012

ditto


2 posted on 04/06/2011 5:00:43 AM PDT by DCmarcher-976453 (SARAH PALIN 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012

Legal relativism. The Constitution should mean whatever we want it to mean at any given time. Nothing more and nothing less. That is the left’s take on morality too.


3 posted on 04/06/2011 5:02:55 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012

So a Supreme Court Justice openly states that He does Not Have to Follow The Constitution if he doesn’t like it and NOT ONE SINGLE CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT??? WTF is wrong with these people?


4 posted on 04/06/2011 5:03:26 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012
They [the courts] will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution.

The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort.

The legislature must be controlled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person.

The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controllable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.

The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.

Brutus, The New-York Journal, January 31, 1788

5 posted on 04/06/2011 5:04:01 AM PDT by Huck (Palin on Libya: Definitely a no-fly zone, definitely regime change, won't rule out ground troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012
The 72-year-old Breyer, considered one of the court's more liberal justices, believes that the court should apply the Constitution's values with a pragmatic view toward present circumstances, rather than focusing only on the document's historical meaning.

Do any of them say this during their confirmation hearings? I'd like to know, for example, what his "pragmatic view" of the First Amendment might be and how he thinks it might differ from Mr. Jefferson's or Mr. Madison's views.

ML/NJ

6 posted on 04/06/2011 5:04:33 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012

Excellent and true.

In discussing this with AP US Government teachers I am struck by the fact that:

1. They view the US Constitution not as a contract between the people and their government, but as a “framework for governing”.

2. Don’t know, understand or even teach the philosophy behind the Constitution. It is barely a topic in AP.

This is dangerous as the AP students become our elites. If the US Constitution is simply just another framework for governance and not a contract then tear it up and start over. If, though, it is a contract it contains the means to amend and reform it within the contract. In contract law this is considered very good. A contract that contains its own remedy needn’t be adjudicated at all or very little.

Things either are or are not allowed by the contract. The terms needn’t be equal, fair or modern. Yet, our Constitution continues to function under the one unchanging item in history - humans and their needs.

The 2nd item is equally insidious. If you don’t know the great ideas that formed the Constitution and that in forming it other ideas were rejected for cause - socialism/monarchy/oligarchy/tyranny - then how can you form a coherent idea about the Constitution?

This is simply getting worse as our elites become teachers training other future elites both equally steeped in ignorance.


7 posted on 04/06/2011 5:09:20 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012

Hey, Breyer, you old bastard! How about come to my house for a round of poker? We can have “living rules” and since it is my house, I’ll “interpret” them. Bring lots of cash, you old hack.


8 posted on 04/06/2011 5:12:11 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Any chance that an previously unpublished section of the constitution might be found somewhere, the one that says what Patriots are to do when their country is overrun with commies, illegal immigrants and their fellow travelers??


9 posted on 04/06/2011 5:12:59 AM PDT by Mouton (Government expands to fill any voids in freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
I wonder how he would feel if we reinterpreted his pay and benefits package "with a pragmatic view toward present circumstances, rather than focusing only on the document's historical meaning."
10 posted on 04/06/2011 5:14:06 AM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (The less I say, the more I'm right...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DCmarcher-976453

Breyer doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

His views are judicial activism and anybody who thinks that way is open to reducing the freedom and liberty as documented in our Constitution as laid down by our founding fathers.

Modern liberals are communists who only wish to take away our freedom and liberty. They want to make all the decisions for us. These liberal communists are elitist scum and hypocritical because they do not wish to abide by the same rules that they want to impose on the rest of us.


11 posted on 04/06/2011 5:15:36 AM PDT by scorchedearther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012

Putting old, burned out hippies and extreme communist activists on the U.S. Supreme Court wasn’t a very bright idea. I don’t care what your politics are, you’ve got to admit, those two bimbos Barry put on the Supreme Court are a couple of real losers.


12 posted on 04/06/2011 5:20:14 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (How's that Keynesian economics working out for ya so far?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012

I guess it depends on what your definition of the word, “is” is.


13 posted on 04/06/2011 5:26:44 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

I get your argument and wholeheartedly agree about judicial activism being bad for freedom. However, I am not following the fine distinction you are drawing between a “framework for governing” and a contract as regards the Constitution. Please enlighten me.


14 posted on 04/06/2011 5:30:38 AM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Ever heard of the Dred Scott decision? Yes, the legislature can correct the idiocy of the courts. But you have to wonder these days which is dumber?

However, all that being said, the big bogey man these days is the executive branch. Administrative “law” instituted through publishing regulations constantly is affecting people’s life liberty and property without a vote and without a look see by any court or judge. If you are lucky some “hearing officer” with minuscule choices for applying the regs has taken a look.


15 posted on 04/06/2011 5:35:33 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

“NOT ONE SINGLE CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT???”

Let’s examine the number of Congress Critters that act in coordinated efforts to pass Unconstitutional laws, subvert national security, and wine and dine our enemies.

This is Treasonous behavior, but that’s what is considered “just normal politics” from DC criminals.

Nobody is going to “drain the swamp” in D.C. from the inside, it’s infested with sharks swimming in sewer water. It will take actual revolution and civil war.


16 posted on 04/06/2011 5:35:41 AM PDT by bitterohiogunclinger (Proudly casting a heavy carbon footprint as I clean my guns ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Since Obama is not eligible to serve in the Office of the President, all of his acts and appointments are unconstitutional, null, and void as if they had never happened. All that is required now is a Congress with a House of Representatives and Senate ready, willing, and able to act upon it.

If the Congress is unwilling to act, it is up to the citiizens to impeach and remove the legislators and judiciary at the lower levels of local, state, and Federal government responsible for not impeaching, recalling, or otherwise removing the Congressmen and Senators who fail to act.

If the citizens do not act, they collectively deserve the government they get as a consequence of their failure to take responsibility for their own lawful and Constitutional self-government.

Members of the Supreme Court of the United States are subject to impeachment, including for a failure to comply with their oath of office obligating them to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America as it is presently amended by the Congress and ratifying States.


17 posted on 04/06/2011 5:40:12 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012
The Constitution means whatever a lib says it means.

God gave Moses the Ten Suggestions.

George Orwell's "1984" black is white, bad is good etc... has come to pass.

18 posted on 04/06/2011 5:44:06 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012

Here’s hoping Mr. Breyer likes his job enough to stick around a few more years. The POS.


19 posted on 04/06/2011 5:48:00 AM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Terrorism in nothing more than Kinetic Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska
What a Croc

He is like the Kennedy's on being Catholic purely cafeteria pick what like in teaching and discard what you don't..

Rose Kennedy had left the Kennedy compound to the catholic Church but no Teddy rewrote her wishes to leave it to Progressive studies.

20 posted on 04/06/2011 5:48:49 AM PDT by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 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