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

Skip to comments.

Breyer: Court Should Aid Minority Rights
NewsMax ^ | 12/3/06 | NewsMax

Posted on 12/03/2006 1:04:49 PM PST by wagglebee

Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."

Breyer, a Clinton appointee who has brokered many of the high court's 5-4 rulings, spoke in a televised interview that aired one day before justices hear a key case on race in schools. He said judges must consider the practical impact of a decision to ensure democratic participation.

"We're the boundary patrol," Breyer said, reiterating themes in his 2005 book that argue in favor of race preferences in university admissions because they would lead to diverse workplaces and leadership.

"It's a Constitution that protects a democratic system, basic liberties, a rule of law, a degree of equality, a division of powers, state, federal, so that no one gets too powerful," said Breyer, who often votes with a four-member liberal bloc of justices.

On Monday, the court will hear arguments in a pair of cases involving integration plans in K-12 schools. The legal challenge, which is backed by the Bush administration, could be among the most significant school cases since the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954 banned racial segregation.

In 2003, the court upheld race-conscious admissions in higher education in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor, however, has since retired and been replaced by conservative Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Antonin Scalia, meanwhile, has denounced the use of race in school admissions as lacking any support in the Constitution.

In his interview, Breyer argued that in some cases it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution because phrases such as "freedom of speech" are vague. Judges must look at the real-world context — not focus solely on framers' intent, as Scalia has argued — because society is constantly evolving, he said.

"Those words, 'the freedom of speech,' 'Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech' — neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet," Breyer said.

Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties.

Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy who isn't tied to special interests.

"You don't want one person's speech, that $20 million giver, to drown out everybody else's. So if we want to give a chance to the people who have only $1 and not $20 million, maybe we have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money," he said.

Breyer, who has voted to uphold abortion rights, declined to comment on the court's role in deciding abortion. Justices this term are considering the constitutionality of so-called "partial-birth" abortion in a case some conservatives hope will be used to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

"The more the precedent has been around, the more people rely on it, the more secure it has to be," he said.

Breyer commented on "Fox News Sunday," in an interview taped last week.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clintonlegacy; emanationspenumbra; fantasyconstitution; hatestheconstitution; judiciary; madeupconstitution; minorityrights; pretendconstitution; scotus; shouldbeimpeached; stephenbreyer; whatamoron
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last
Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."

The only group in America that is "too powerful" is the unelected judiciary that is granting itself powers that clearly violate the Constitution.

1 posted on 12/03/2006 1:04:57 PM PST by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Amen.


2 posted on 12/03/2006 1:07:16 PM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text

Time for an impeachment. His oath clearly stated that he would "support and defend the Constitution", not "look beyond the text".

As did mine and that of many other FReepers.

3 posted on 12/03/2006 1:07:21 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Well, he's certainly shameless in openly admitting that the Constitution doesn't matter to the Surpeme Court anymore.


4 posted on 12/03/2006 1:07:45 PM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

A very stupid belief that is really intended to enslave everyone except the elitists.


5 posted on 12/03/2006 1:08:45 PM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Right you are! His words are in direct contradiction to the stated role of Justices of the Supreme Court. Impeach the usurping tyrant!!!


6 posted on 12/03/2006 1:10:14 PM PST by johnpaul (The Minutemen are NOT vigilantes!! They are PATRIOTS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

"Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech"

Only a leftist subversive could find this statement vague.


7 posted on 12/03/2006 1:10:18 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Yup. Protect the minority - Native Born English Speaking Males. I would have said Caucasian, but Black males are getting their cuts now too - thanks to DIVERSITY... translated as no need for education, skills. ability, merit etc etc as long as the person is in a PC protected category.
8 posted on 12/03/2006 1:10:38 PM PST by Sam Ketcham (Amnesty means vote dilution, increased taxes to bring them UP to the Poverty Level!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
I saw the interview. Wallace had him cornered in an inconsistency about when to go outside the law to suit his needs. It had something to do with Abu Ghraib and Wallace didn't close the deal. It was also the point that Breyer was perfectly happy to confer civil rights to non citizens, I think.

IMHO, Breyer is an arrogant fool. What's a sophist? That might be him as well.

9 posted on 12/03/2006 1:11:58 PM PST by Thebaddog (Labrador Retrievers are the dog's dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
By "too powerful", he must mean able to contend with the power of the court. They are after all like gods, except when they rule against liberals, in which case they are evil demons.

Every liberal knows this; they don't even have to think about it--which the studiously don't.

10 posted on 12/03/2006 1:12:38 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."

What a sick, twisted man.
11 posted on 12/03/2006 1:12:45 PM PST by Vision ("As a man thinks...so is he." Proverbs 23:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
You don't want one person's speech, that $20 million giver, to drown out everybody else's. So if we want to give a chance to the people who have only $1 and not $20 million, maybe we have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money," he said.

George Soros will probably spring for the Hallmark Chistmas Card for Breyer THIS year.

12 posted on 12/03/2006 1:13:08 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

This public admission of what we have seen in case resolution says it all.

The Court is loaded with people who don't give a damn about law and the Constitution, but with what they instead deem "fair".


13 posted on 12/03/2006 1:13:09 PM PST by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Lil'freeper
Unfreaking believable.
14 posted on 12/03/2006 1:14:30 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (It looks like one of those days when one nuke is just not enough-- Lt. Col. Mitchell, SG-1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Hooah.


15 posted on 12/03/2006 1:15:07 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (It looks like one of those days when one nuke is just not enough-- Lt. Col. Mitchell, SG-1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Amen to all posts before mine!!!


16 posted on 12/03/2006 1:15:34 PM PST by Plains Drifter (America First, Last, and Always!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech"

Only a leftist subversive could find this statement vague

I expected nothing less from a man appointed by a president who questioned what the meaning of "is", is

17 posted on 12/03/2006 1:17:12 PM PST by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing.....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

since when are judges of scotus supposed to be kings???

they are to uphold support and defend the constitution ....they are not to make laws...seems that is the domain of the legislature....

I guess I never learned my lessons and misunderstood badly in grammar school civics!!


18 posted on 12/03/2006 1:17:29 PM PST by hnj_00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
isn't it their job to do exactly what the constitution says? oh well, what would the world be without liberals trying to squander the rights of the American people. Oh that's right it would be better.
19 posted on 12/03/2006 1:18:21 PM PST by dudewheresmytank (OK, who forgot to inform muslims they're a "religion of peace"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Judges must look at the real-world context — not focus solely on framers' intent, as Scalia has argued — because society is constantly evolving, he said.

"The Constitution is merely a guideline - - judges must rule based on the chic political correctness of the day, regardless of what that crusty old document may say.... Besides, the amendment process is too cumbersome and old-fashioned."

Isn't this scumbag Breyer getting on in years? Any rumors of disease, or anything else encouraging?

20 posted on 12/03/2006 1:19:31 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Judge Roberts:

" If the law is on the side of the little guy, I will vote for the little guy. If the law is on the side of the big guy, I will vote for the big guy.

That is what the rule of law is."

21 posted on 12/03/2006 1:19:58 PM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties. Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy who isn't tied to special interests. "You don't want one person's speech, that $20 million giver, to drown out everybody else's. So if we want to give a chance to the people who have only $1 and not $20 million, maybe we have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money," he said

Gosh! What a statement coming from a man that at times is the single swing vote on so many things. He wants to protect the little guy from the big guy while in reality Justice Breyer is himself the 300 lb. gorilla mandating his way of thinking upon the whole country. He's the unlimate "big guy", the person who all by himself is super "powerful". He is so powerful that he can throw out his own employment agreement (The US Constitution) and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

22 posted on 12/03/2006 1:20:41 PM PST by isthisnickcool (If you can't light a fire in the vacuum of space what's the deal with the Sun?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"The only group in America that is "too powerful" is the unelected judiciary that is granting itself powers that clearly violate the Constitution."


23 posted on 12/03/2006 1:20:51 PM PST by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

he is sick!


24 posted on 12/03/2006 1:21:43 PM PST by yochanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful.""

In other words, Justice Breyer has attained, of his own accord, some extra-Consitutional power that allows him to look beyond the Constitution's meaning and intent in order to limit the "power" of other entities. My questions is, where is the check on this self-proclaimed, self-assigned power by the Justice?
25 posted on 12/03/2006 1:21:52 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
There's no way this guys view will prevail in the Seattle and Louisville school cases.

And, I'm really grateful for that...

26 posted on 12/03/2006 1:22:41 PM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy ...

Note to Breyer: Ask your Chief Justice what the heck your proper role is.

27 posted on 12/03/2006 1:22:52 PM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I guess Breyer will be voting for Hussein Obama in the 2008 election.


28 posted on 12/03/2006 1:30:13 PM PST by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Someone should read the Constitution to him. No where is the word "democracy" or any derivation thereof used.


29 posted on 12/03/2006 1:31:09 PM PST by PghBaldy (Reporter: Are you surprised? Nancy Pelosi: No. My eyes always look like this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

ah, I see. so if you don't like what is there, make it up. That is exactly what our founding fathers had in mind. < /sarcasm >


30 posted on 12/03/2006 1:31:31 PM PST by Big Guy and Rusty 99 (proud sponsor of the "helmets for democrats" foundation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
In his interview, Breyer argued that in some cases it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution because phrases such as "freedom of speech" are vague. Judges must look at the real-world context — not focus solely on framers' intent, as Scalia has argued — because society is constantly evolving, he said.

If it's not his job to follow the Constitution then it's time for him to find another job.

31 posted on 12/03/2006 1:33:12 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead

I quote article 3, section 3 of the Constitution when I say, "of"


32 posted on 12/03/2006 1:34:09 PM PST by Big Guy and Rusty 99 (proud sponsor of the "helmets for democrats" foundation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution
look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary

Impeach the buffoon, NOW!

33 posted on 12/03/2006 1:35:22 PM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"..... and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary" - Breyer

In the minds of leftists judges (like Breyer) "when necessary" happens every other seconds.

34 posted on 12/03/2006 1:35:58 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

If I sue the powerful SCOTUS justice Stephen Breyer, will the SCOTUS make sure that I win?


35 posted on 12/03/2006 1:36:59 PM PST by AmishDude (I coined "Senator Ass" to describe Jim Webb. He may have already used it as a character in a novel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

>"no one gets too powerful."

In other words, no purpose for a majority since majority cannot rule, only the courts can rule.


36 posted on 12/03/2006 1:37:32 PM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

As Justice Scalia and others have correctly pointed out, when "We the People" determine that the Constitution needs to be amended, then "We the People" are empowered to do so. There is NO Constitutional provision for the Supreme Court to amend or alter the Constitution in any way whatsoever.


37 posted on 12/03/2006 1:38:57 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
See this article roasting his silliness over the coals: The Great Pretender: Justice Stephen Breyer Speaks at Yale
38 posted on 12/03/2006 1:39:38 PM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody
"Now," as in before the next Congress is taken over by the dims.

Sadly, that won't happen.

HF

39 posted on 12/03/2006 1:40:34 PM PST by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech" Only a leftist subversive could find this statement vague.

And they find the same vagueness in the wording of the 2nd amendment, invariably interpreting it to mean that individuals don't have the right to keep and bear arms, only the state does.

40 posted on 12/03/2006 1:42:54 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
By disregarding the Constitution the right of the people to govern themselves is fatally damaged,and the tyranny of the Judiciary is born. What happened in Massachusetts with same-sex marriage can happen to every State if one more Justice like Breyer is chosen to SCOTUS.
41 posted on 12/03/2006 1:45:31 PM PST by stimulant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: holden
as in before the next Congress is taken over by the dims.

This is NOT the first time this type of bastardization of the Constitution by the judicial tyrants has happened. Had they been taken to task in the past 12 years, we would not have to worry about January.

42 posted on 12/03/2006 1:47:24 PM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must ... look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."
In essence, Justice Breyers is telling us that the United States of America is no longer a constitutional republic, it is now a krytocracy.
43 posted on 12/03/2006 1:47:32 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

More emanations from the penumbra of the Constitution. Also called, "Making s**t up".


44 posted on 12/03/2006 1:48:24 PM PST by John Jorsett (scam never sleeps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Time for an impeachment.

I agree, too.

45 posted on 12/03/2006 1:49:46 PM PST by D-Chivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Breyer is what is wrong with the U.S. Court of Supreme Beings. It's time to term limit these moronic jugheads.


46 posted on 12/03/2006 1:59:09 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Study hard and do your homework or you'll end up stuck in the House or Senate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Breyer should recuse himself. He has pre-judged the case.


47 posted on 12/03/2006 2:01:05 PM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Ketcham

Huh? What cuts are black males suffering now?

Maybe I just don't understand your post?


48 posted on 12/03/2006 2:02:49 PM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Breyer should have his head examined.


49 posted on 12/03/2006 2:04:13 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

PING!!!!!!


50 posted on 12/03/2006 2:15:44 PM PST by Txsleuth (Bolton/Cheney (that would be Lynne) 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 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