"Those more literalist judges who emphasize language, history, tradition and precedent cannot justify their practices by claiming that is what the framers wanted," Breyer said, "For the framers did not say specifically what factors judges should emphasize when seeking to interpret the Constitution's open language." You see, you shouldn't try to determine what the Founders wanted by what they wrote. You need to make it up as you go along. Why "emphasize" anything? To what "open language" does he refer? He's making my point for me, for cryin' out loud.
I also was rather astounded at that statement, especially when it comes from a Supreme Court Justice. How can one know what the Framers of the Constitution intended without reading what was written by the Framers, understanding the writings influencing the minds of the Framers, and subsequent rulings from the early days of the Republic?
There is a distinct disconnect in Breyer's statement.