Skip to comments.Justice Breyer on "Active Liberty"
Posted on 12/14/2005 7:42:48 PM PST by Otho
Give Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer his due. With the publication of his new book "Active Liberty," he enthusiastically embraces a mea culpa approach to allegations that Supreme Court justices invent, recreate, and expand constitutional principles as they please. Viewed as a response to Justice Antonin Scalia's "A Matter of Interpretation," Breyers book, openly advocates for the notion that U.S. constitutional law is whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices wishes...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The theory that employees within an organization will advance to their highest level of competence and then be promoted to and remain at a level at which they are incompetent.
And so he has.
I think that Breyer has stated quite clearly, that he considers himself above allegiance to the Constitution he swore to protect, and considers himself, a member of an all powerful oligarchy. He is a traitor. A Domestic Enemy of the self same Constitution, country, and people, that he is supposedly acting as guardian to. He deserves the worst fate
He gives me a headache.
Yep, one of our nation's best and brightest legal theorists!
From listening to Breyer being interviewed about his book, I think his point of view is that the Constitution embraces larger values, and those values should be fostered as and when appropriate. Yes, unless used very sparingly, that is a akin to a hunting license for the Robes to bag any game they want, in season or out. Near absolute power is a corrupting influence, and SCOTUS has it in large measure. All they need is for elite opinion to be in their corner when they choose to move.
I doubt Breyer was asked the right questions to elicit it, and he certainly did not volunteer it. But then Breyer may not have had a "philosphy" then. (He was mostly interested in the nexus of government regulation, law and economics, which was his expertise.)
The way Breyer put it in his interview, he went back to look at his body of work to find a theme, and lo and behold found one. It is as if Breyer didn't know what he was doing until he reflected upon it after the fact, and was just taking one case at a time, dealing with each tree without seeing the forest.
I found Breyer's interview rather self impeaching, but then I am just a beat up old obscure provincial lawyer, practicing in obscurity in an obscure place, so what do I know?
Thanks Bill. Ginsburg and Breyer. Could he have found any other judges further to the left?
Breyer argues for an "independent judiciary" to implement "active liberty." But the real question is judicial independence from what?
Where does one begin with this? I don't think the framers of the Constitution invisioned a judicial junta. But that seems to be Breyers ideal. Not elected, unanswerable to any of the restraints of democracy, calling it "active liberty" while forcing its will and power on the people he thinks are still living in 1787. He's so far gone beyond stupidity, revealing breathtaking arrogance. He is, in fact lawless.
If this dunghill rat feels free to re-interpret the Constitution on a whim, I would say a similar calculus should apply to the question of jury nullification. Supposing (only for the sake of argument) that someone shot Breyer between the eyes, perhaps jurors at the assassin's trial ought to engage in a little "active liberty" of their own, ignoring the law as well as the judge's instructions, and letting the culprit walk free as an example to other would-be tyrants.
He should be impeached along with Ginsburg, Kennedy, and souter. We need to start impeaching justices who clearly do not demonstrate good behaviour as stated in article III section1.
He's on FNC NOW. what a tard. His explanation of his ruling of Mccain Feingold was nonsense. he might as well have said people with more money have more freedom of speech, and MF balances it out. That's the biggest piece of hooey I've ever heard.
I've always felt that by nominating Ginsburg and Breyer, Clinton was "spitting in the eye" of the American people.
By his own words, Breyer is an enemy of the Republic.
actually the "law is whatever the judge wants it to be" is generally a truism in the courts.
Most of the time the judges are given a free reign because the parties do not always have the money or resources to file an appeal. The lower court judges know this and thus they rule with impunity in their courts.
The mandatory bars are delusional when they don't see the amount of disrepute they have EARNED from the rank and file citizens.
Ginsburg was confirmed with what, a grand total of three no votes? Way to go along to get along, Senate Republicans!
If you know a few judges personally, you know many of them have the same "I am all power and all powerful" state of mind.
Black Robe Fever is a real state of mind. I appears Breyer put his confession in the form of a book.