Posted on 03/19/2024 12:35:33 PM PDT by Twotone
Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer criticized his colleagues on the high court over their interpretation of the Constitution.
The former justice, who retired in 2022, is set to release a book titled Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, laying out an argument critiquing the methods used by many Republican-appointed justices to interpret the Constitution.
“Recently, major cases have come before the court while several new justices have spent only two or three years at the court,” Breyer said in the book, according to the New York Times. “Major changes take time, and there are many years left for the newly appointed justices to decide whether they want to build the law using only textualism and originalism.”
The argument between “living Constitution” and textualist interpretations isn’t a new one. But Breyer laid out three major concerns with originalism, questioning the qualifications of Supreme Court justices to do some of the work required to determine what a text’s original authors intended.
“First, it requires judges to be historians — a role for which they may not be qualified — constantly searching historical sources for the ‘answer’ where there often isn’t one there,” Breyer wrote in the book. “Second, it leaves no room for judges to consider the practical consequences of the constitutional rules they propound. And third, it does not take into account the ways in which our values as a society evolve over time as we learn from the mistakes of our past.”
Breyer told the New York Times how he shared similar approaches to interpreting the Constitution as former Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, attempting to contrast recent appointments by GOP presidents.
“Sandra, David — I mean, the two of them, I would see eye to eye not necessarily in the result in every case, but just the way you approach it,” Breyer said. “And Tony, too, to a considerable degree.”
He also took issue with the court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, one of the final cases he oversaw before retiring from the high court, arguing that there were too many questions at hand with abortion.
“There are too many questions,” Breyer said. “Are they really going to allow women to die on the table because they won’t allow an abortion which would save her life? I mean, really, no one would do that. And they wouldn’t do that. And there’ll be dozens of questions like that.”
Breyer has previously spoken out against the Dobbs decision, saying he tried to persuade against overturning Roe v. Wade.
“Was I happy about it? Not for an instant. Did I do everything I could to persuade people? Of course, of course,” Breyer told CNN’s Chris Wallace in September.
No, not too.
Thanks Clinton for this disaster of a justice.
He should be happy he didnt go out in a box like Ruthy.
This is interesting. Breyer is an intellectual who usually missed the affect of SCOTUS rulings, by which I mean to state he lacked any common sense. He could have been a typical law school prof, but he made a poor SCOTUS justice.
It’s always nice to hear the ranting of retired hacks who no longer have any power to further damage my beloved country. Hey, Steve, if you’re such an indispensable guardian of the Republic, why did you knuckle under to your fellow leftists that pressured you into retiring?
Translation:
The Constitution means what I say it is. Conservative originalist are pooh pooh heads.
Is this the wimp Biden pushed out so he could put an angry leftist Black woman on the court?
If he’s such a big man with big ideas, he should have stayed on the court.
“Are they really going to allow women to die on the table because they won’t allow an abortion which would save her life? I mean, really, no one would do that.”
Set aside for a moment the child’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and just concentrate on the mother of the child.
The judge said, “no one would do that (let her die). That being the case why not leave it up to the legislative branch to make legislative decisions; why have judges make legislative decisions?
That man should have never been put on the bench; he is unqualified.
Basically, he's saying that originalists like Thomas aren't historians any more than Ketanji is a biologist and, thus, can't be originalists. He's also saying that our changing society needs an ever changing constitution, which is more hogwash than a Hamas press release.
I am so glad he’s not on the court anymore. The court’s loss is the country’s gain.
Read between the text here. What is the purpose of this piece? A whole book by liberal Breyer telling us why he is a morally superior liberal? Well yes, in part, but the real focus of this piece emanating from the NYTimes is: abortion. Just another campaign piece carefully crafted to move the abortion issue to the front of a national debate. All of a sudden I’m seeing these seemingly random stories involving abortion. I’m sure it’s just a mere coincidence though.
And we're supposed to take this guy seriously?
In sum, words have no fixed meaning.
And there are no absolute moral values or first principles, so every era, and indeed, every person, gets to make their own interpretation, which we must treat as "valid" no matter how absurd.
A NEO-MARXIST logic, if ever there was one.
Glad you're off SCOTUS, fool.
Breyer doesn’t understand that policy is in the hands of the elected legislature. Breyer says justices should not be historians? They really should not be legislators.
Pragmatism = Activism. Judges are supposed to apply the law, not make it up. If the constitution requires change or amendment, that is not within the authority of the judiciary branch.
the US Constitution is a living document
it has been amended 27 times
but collectivists do not have time for all that
they prefer
by any means necessary
Wasn’t it Breyer who used European Law to decide cases instead of the Constitution?
Except there is a fresh idiot in his seat now.
So he interprets the Constitution to mean whatever the heck he wants it to say.
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.