Supreme Court's Breyer speaks on judges' role (Living Document)

Associated Press ^ | April 5, 2011 | NOMAAN MERCHANT

[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.

[Last Dakotan]

Once again, thank you John Sununu. The Asshat threw the Supreme Court by not even looking into the man who he proposed to GHW Bush.

[rlmorel]

Yeah. Because we are SOOOO much smarter and more sophisicated than the founders, and their times were SOOOOOO simple back then, nothing like our complicated times.

\s

[sergeantdave]

We need to stop seeing judges as sacrosanct and omniscient and consider removing them by any means necessary, including running them out of town, tar and feathers and summary execution, at our time and choosing and for whatever trifling reason we decide..

If judges refuse to follow the law and make it up as they go along, the citizens should also reserve that option and right.

If it’s anarchy and mob rule that Breyer wants, he should be the first “judge” to feel its fury.

[MrB]

The states, originally, were the only governing, sovereign powers. These sovereign entities agreed to construct a national government based on contractual parameters - “we’ll give up our power and give you the power ONLY for these specific items”.

It was a contract under which the federal entity was created by pre-existing sovereign entities. The “framework” is a by-product that the state entities had to agree on through ratification, and the purpose of that framework was to limit the power of the created entity.

[StonyBurk]

IMO when FDR changed the ballance on the supreme Court 37-41-as noted by John Eidsmoe Christian Legal Advisor Mott Media 1984,p.172—the Court has never fully recovered. While I think
it is good for one or perhaps two “progressives” on any body they ought NEVER be in the majority-as true of public education -as it is in any government.I cannot reconcile Breyer to what David Barton-and others have documented of James Wilson, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Joseph Story (the late comer)and I add David Brewer and Thomas Cooley for these all seem to have written that the Constitution ought be understood according to the terms used.Therefore I am inclined to agree with the Honorable Scalia-or the others like the Honorable Clarence Thomas
or others like them far more than I can ever agree with a Justice who has said we ought consider foreign laws and
Constitutions when debating what is true of our Constitution and laws. Breyer and Ginsburg have both said as much -and I believe the appointments to the Court by the 0
reflect his animus toward our Constitution.A Constitution they all swear to defend.

[MrB]

If it’s anarchy and mob rule that Breyer wants

Nope, that's not what these folks are after. Democracy, ie, "mob rule", is only a vehicle by which the elitists can attain power. They do not want anarchy, but power and privilege for themselves.

This is why they need the power to arbitrarily change the law to fit whatever whim they have on a particular day. To be limited by fixed rules is to limit the power of the ruling class to control everything about everyone else's lives.

[Paine in the Neck]

The Constitution was intended by its creators to be a barrier to the type of totalitarian state the Progressives seek. That is why, from the earliest days of the Progressive movement, they have sought to redefine “constitutional” to mean its exact opposite.

Progressives imagine themselves to be an annointed elite whose role on this Earth is to “farm” the rest of us like some gigantic 4H project (apologies to the 4Hers). They are no different than Geo. III, or the Sun King, or any tyrant whoever claimed sovereignty by virtue of divine right.

[Paine in the Neck]

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???

They do not call for his impeachment because there is no consequence for having failed to. Until voters hold these gutless wonders to account at the voting booth they will continue to shirk their oaths of office.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I saw him spouting his BS in an interview not so long ago. What a self serving idiot. I can’t believe he ever got on the SCOTUS in the first place. But then again Sotamayor and Kagan were shockers also.

[1010RD]

frame·work (frmwûrk)
n.
1. A structure for supporting or enclosing something else, especially a skeletal support used as the basis for something being constructed.
2. An external work platform; a scaffold.
3. A fundamental structure, as for a written work.
4. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality.

When they talk about a “framework for government or governing” they mean either 1. or 4. When looking at 1. it may appear relatively innocuous. It's just the “framework” for how America is to be governed. It helped to build our country and maintain our liberty.

But, 1. is actually insidious. The Constitution is unique across all human history. I personally believe that it is God inspired. It's entire purpose is to preserve liberty, individual liberty. Doing that involves governing and government, but when liberals use definition 1. they really mean that America is a work in progress: we have a flawed, but effective document (the Constitution), but we're still constructing our City on the Hill, our Eden, our Utopia; we've not yet achieved social justice. That's dangerous to liberty.

The truth is the Constitution is a contract and a “framework” for liberty. Liberty is a work in progress and if one doesn't like the Constitution then the same document has a method of correction - Amendments.

The second issue is with definition 4. If the Constitution is just a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality; then it is susceptible to “new” realities. It then becomes a living document and that leads to judicial activism.

If instead the Constitution is a contract then both parties to it, the people and the states, have a vested interest in seeing the contract adhered to. That leads to stability and stability preserves liberty. If the contract is whatever we say it is whenever we say it or whenever some judge says it is on a given day, well that's not a contract. It's a nothing.

Look what fiat currency has done to the value of the dollar. Fiat currency is whatever government says it is. Do we want that for the Constitution?

[T-Bird45]

Thanks for the reply as it helps me better understand your point. Your 4th paragraph on the Constitution as a contract with a “framework for liberty” is my personal view. I find the Constitution to be a rules of the road for citizens to measure their government against.

I understand how you draw the differences in approach that are rooted in the definition you used and how those approaches can be dangerous to liberty.

[Jacquerie]

I highly recommend Randy Barnett's Restoring the Lost Constitution. Unlike Hussein, Barnett is a true constitutional scholar.

He gets down in the weeds of original intent v. originalism, we the people, consent of the governed, necessary and proper, commerce power, judicial review and a lot more.

[1010RD]

Excellent. I’ll get it. How are you doing?

Have you seen what they’re doing to the AP US History exam?:

http://documents.nytimes.com/new-sample-questions-ap-us-history

Our elites are intentionally being taught the socialist view of American history. How do we counteract that?