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O'Connor, however, has since retired and been replaced by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.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.
The only group in America that is "too powerful" is the unelected judiciary that is granting itself powers that clearly violate the Constitution.
Amen.
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.
Well, he's certainly shameless in openly admitting that the Constitution doesn't matter to the Surpeme Court anymore.
A very stupid belief that is really intended to enslave everyone except the elitists.
Right you are! His words are in direct contradiction to the stated role of Justices of the Supreme Court. Impeach the usurping tyrant!!!
"Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech"
Only a leftist subversive could find this statement vague.
IMHO, Breyer is an arrogant fool. What's a sophist? That might be him as well.
Every liberal knows this; they don't even have to think about it--which the studiously don't.
George Soros will probably spring for the Hallmark Chistmas Card for Breyer THIS year.
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".
Hooah.
Amen to all posts before mine!!!
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
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!!
"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?
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.