Former Supreme Court Justice Breyer Criticizes Ex-Colleagues in Surprising Rebuke
Stephen Breyer’s Bold Critique on Constitutional Interpretation
In a remarkable show of introspection and critique, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer voiced his concerns over the high court’s constitutional interpretation strategies.
Set to stir the judicial landscape, Breyer’s upcoming book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, offers an incisive look at the interpretative tactics favored by many of his conservative successors.
“Recently, major cases have come before the court while several new justices have spent only two or three years at the court,” Breyer notes. “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 Contentious Debate Over Constitutional Interpretation
The tussle between proponents of the “living Constitution” and textualists is hardly a novelty. However, Breyer dives deep into the fray with three strong critiques of originalism:
- It unrealistically expects judges to don the hats of historians, an expertise they might lack.
- It overlooks the necessity for judges to evaluate the pragmatic outcomes of their constitutional rulings.
- It fails to acknowledge the dynamic evolution of societal values over time.
Breyer’s approach to constitutional interpretation draws parallels to renowned Justices, such as Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, who, despite their Republican affiliations, weighed legal decisions with broader perspectives.
“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 reflects. “And Tony, too, to a considerable degree.”
Breyer’s Take on Controversial Rulings
Breyer also addresses the contentious Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, underscoring the plethora of ethical dilemmas it introduces with regards to abortion rights.
“There are too many questions,” he says. “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 expressed discontent with the outcome of Dobbs, reminiscing on fruitless efforts to prevent the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
His book intends to challenge existing juridical thought processes and advocate for flexibility and foresight in the noble pursuit of justice. Eager readers and legal aficionados alike are encouraged to explore Breyer’s perspectives for a nuanced understanding of the Constitution.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The forthcoming publication promises not just a discourse on legal philosophy but a call to action for evolving jurisprudence that resonates with our collective growth as a society.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
