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.
Well that's one way to get rid of the constitution, just ignore it.
No one knows the future. He chooses to appoint himself as a god.
He’s also saying that our changing society needs an ever changing constitution
”I’m not going to try to figure out what the Founders of this country were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. I just want to know what the words in the Constitution meant when they were written.”
Breyer was H W
Breyer is engaging in the favorite past time of liberals, herding their stupid majorities to elect candidates that despise the Republic.
people forget he used to work for Teddy Kennedy as a Senate aide before his first judicial nomination (circa 1979). Politician at heart.
“...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.”
The 14th Amendment corrected a ruling by SCOTUS that said that blacks weren’t citizens of the U.S.
And where in the Constitution does it provide for SCOTUS to determine what is and is not Constitutional? You can look all you want, and it just isn’t there.
If you don’t like living under the Constitution as written, amend it. Too much trouble, too hard?..then live with it as it is written. Most reasonably educated people can read words and glean their meaning. It’s not as if we are doing something tricky like defining what a woman is.
“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.”
There is a hidden assumption in his statement—and it is truly scary.
It is the concept of progress.
Under that concept everything homo sapiens does gets better and better and better and better until we finally reach Utopia.
Does that sound like any society you know anywhere in the world?
Lol.
In the real world things get better sometimes, worse sometimes, then better again sometimes etc.
The “progress” vision is the term “progressives” use to slam dunk totalitarian measures down the throats of the peons.
i.e. he thinks law should be made up as we go along. Depending on feeling that particular day.
Breyer can shove it. The founders knew better how to form a Republic.
What a clown.
A complete mediocrity as a justice who never strayed from voting with the SC Democrats. Who is going to buy this bore’s book? He praises Republican moderates like O’Connor and liberal Republican Souter who went to the dark side only because they voted with him
Thankful this ASS CLOWN retired before he expired.
“whether they want to build the law using only textualism and originalism.”
How about judges not building law at all? Just a thought.
Alan Morrison, the associate dean for public interest and public service at George Washington University Law School, said that it should be no surprise that Breyer — who was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and retired in 2022 — would write a book raising questions about certain court.
Should be titled, “why I just made shit up by being a ahole”.
https://jewishinsider.com/2022/01/breyer...
Breyer retirement leaves open the Court’s ‘Jewish seat’
webJanuary 27, 2022. Following news reports on Wednesday that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer plans to retire at the end of this term, Court watchers and political… Just another red diaper baby.
Sounds like his current irrelevance is chaffing his shorts.
Originalism is not a bad thing, at all. He says it requires the Justices become historians. Does he think we believe any of them, even the wrong ones, have not delved in to the relevant historical texts at some point in their schooling? Really?
Go home, sir. The shuffleboard tournament starts at 6PM, in the community center...
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.