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

Skip to comments.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Breyer takes aim at former colleagues in stunning slam
Washington Examiner ^ | March 18, 2024 | Jack Birle

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; arrestbreyer; babykillers; breyer; breyerisatraitor; clintoonappointee; dobbsvjackson; judicialactivism; judicialsedition; originalism; overturnhisrulings; roevwade; scotus; stephenbreyer; supremecourt; textualism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: Twotone

The court was under Leftest majority for decades. We didn’t like it, but that’s
the way things go. We hoped for improvement, and improvement finally took
place.

Now the Leftists are just melting down because they can’t control things
in perpetuity.

Boo hoo…


41 posted on 03/19/2024 2:47:15 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the USofA & to the Constitutional REPUBLIC for which it stands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

NO DOCTOR will allow his patient to die because of the law against abortion. Doctors WILL and HAVE let people die because of vaccination status, mainly for Covid.


42 posted on 03/19/2024 2:57:44 PM PDT by Glad2bnuts (“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: We should have set up ambushes...paraphrased)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
As has been pointed out by others (Rush?), there is no point in having a “living Constitution” since it would be whatever people want it to be, which would be a recipe for chaos. That is most definitely not what the Founders had in mind when creating the Constitution.
43 posted on 03/19/2024 3:02:28 PM PDT by Major Matt Mason (To solve the Democrat problem, the RINO problem must first be solved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Another poster child on why Article III is a mistake. Hamilton’s diarrhea defending what Robert Yates pointed out should have been ignored based on historical events by those that ratified. At least put a lot of checks/balances in that checks SCOTUS’ opinions plus screw the Congress courts’ (Appeals) and choke off the volume. Keep the power local so you can pressure the reps/judges directly, including where they live with tar/feathers at the ready.


44 posted on 03/19/2024 3:10:21 PM PDT by rollo tomasi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Breyer hates the constitution and now he is trying to sell a book.


45 posted on 03/19/2024 3:13:33 PM PDT by EastTexasTraveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

I remember that closet leftist David Souter. He was one of the main proponents in a NE case of property confiscation of private property by local governments. Mainly, the case involve a developer who bribed local government to condemn the property (very valuable for resort building) and made the owner sell it cheaply.

I heard years later when Souter retired he had the same thing pulled on him. Karma with a big K.


46 posted on 03/19/2024 3:17:42 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

What makes Breyer think his rulings were golden? Most of his ruling have proven to be rather brown in reality, and I am not referring to skin color with my choice of color choice.


47 posted on 03/19/2024 3:22:10 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tell It Right

“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...”

If the Founding Fathers had intended for a “living Constitution” reactive to the whims of the majority at a given moment they would not have expressly stipulated the amendment process for altering it.


48 posted on 03/19/2024 3:34:13 PM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Don’t care. Glad you’re gone.

Die already.


49 posted on 03/19/2024 3:43:54 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Sounds like the “esteemed” gentleman has contracted yet another case of rectal syphilis.


50 posted on 03/19/2024 3:45:00 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Proudly Clinging To My Guns And My Religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

If it can mean whatever you want, it means nothing. Wonder why there haven’t been any pushes to create new Amendments?


51 posted on 03/19/2024 4:14:42 PM PDT by Mean Daddy (Every time Hillary lies, a demon gets its wings. - Windflier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
#11: “I am so glad he’s not on the court anymore. The court’s loss is the country’s gain.”

Truer words were never spoken! 👍🏼

52 posted on 03/19/2024 4:56:26 PM PDT by Governor Dinwiddie (LORD, grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

These hack Justices treat the Constitution as a 1970’s “mood ring.”


53 posted on 03/19/2024 5:15:25 PM PDT by csn vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Given that this guy is not an active judge or Justice, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what he thinks. It does seem quite evident that he is very bitter, almost like old man Biden screaming at the clouds, though clearly this one at least has some of his mind intact. Not his moral values, I would point out, but his mind.


54 posted on 03/19/2024 5:19:34 PM PDT by Ancesthntr (“The right to buy weapons is the right to be free.” ― A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem

A specious argument. Abortion has always been allowed when the mother’s life is endangered. Never ever in this country has a woman been told that she must carry a pregnancy when it might lead to her death or permanent damage to her health. That is medical malpractice and always has been.


55 posted on 03/19/2024 5:37:56 PM PDT by erkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tell It Right

Yep - technology advances.

Human nature hasn’t changed one iota in 5000 years. Anytime you hear some assclown quack on the TV talking about the constitution being “outdated” or “archaic” you can rest assured their intentions are not specifically too good.


56 posted on 03/19/2024 6:23:23 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Sorry Stevie, it is a contract between the states and the federal government they created. You have to read what the contract says and decide based on that text. Not what you wish it said. Your use of ‘pragmatism’ sounds like ‘fabulist’. Stick to the text, not your perverted wishes when deciding cases. Oh, that’s right, you didn’t when you were sitting on the bench.


57 posted on 03/19/2024 6:35:06 PM PDT by curious7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

“pragmatism” is a vague, self-congratulatory euphemism for “ judgement call”. How Breyer doesn’t see that the Supreme Court is not the place to air one’s “pragmatic’ grievances, really baffles me. It’s there precisely to oversee the constitutionality of government’s purported “ pragmatism,”


58 posted on 03/19/2024 6:56:21 PM PDT by Free Louie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

The Constitution is actually a very simple document and not difficult to interpret. It is mostly a document outlining individual rights of citizens, and states. It is also very specific about outlining restrictions of the Federal Government.

When the Constitution was written it was a document that allowed much sovereignty to the individual states. If it was not such the individual states would not have agreed to join it as a new nation, “The United States of America.”

Our Federal Government today is a monster that methodically denies the rights of individual states. Abortion is a perfect example. I abhor abortion. I also recognize abortion is not mentioned in The Constitution as a right. Thus laws on abortion are up to the individual states. It is that simple. As much as I abhor abortion I will support California and New York etc. in allowing it as this is a state function and not federal. Thus I am supporting The Constitution as written. The logic of the right to abortion in Roe v Wade was insane. It was based on the “right to privacy.” Via this logic if I murder someone in my home it is okay due to my right to privacy? That ruling was judicial activism contrary to the constitution and now is dead. Fortunately in Texas we are not insane.


59 posted on 03/19/2024 8:53:51 PM PDT by cpdiii (cane cutter-deckhand-oilfield roughneck-drilling fluids tech-geologist-pilot-instructor-pharmacist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

This guy is a militant old leftist loon. It doesn’t require you to be a historian. It simply requires you to read and understand. And if a law needs to be changed or updated or removed; that’s up to Congress; not some sad pinko in a black robe. Go away you old turd.


60 posted on 03/19/2024 9:34:06 PM PDT by vpintheak (Sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 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