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O'Connor, however, has since retired and been replaced by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.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.
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.
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.
More emanations from the penumbra of the Constitution. Also called, "Making s**t up".
I agree, too.
Breyer is what is wrong with the U.S. Court of Supreme Beings. It's time to term limit these moronic jugheads.
Breyer should recuse himself. He has pre-judged the case.
Huh? What cuts are black males suffering now?
Maybe I just don't understand your post?
Breyer should have his head examined.
PING!!!!!!
What it boils down to is that Breyer doesn't give a rat's patoot about the constitution. That puts him in league with the left whose goal is to undermine the constitution so that the state becomes the giver (and taker) of rights.
Although the devil is in the details, protecting minority rights is, in and of itself, a worthy effort. But Breyer is saying the court should PROMOTE minority rights, and to do that the court must step around the constitution, he says. He's right about that, but wrong that it should be done. Promoting one group's rights over another's is unconstitutional and extremely detrimental to the country. The correct observation would have been to make this distinction.
Then, we are no longer a Constitutional Republic. We are an Oligarchy.
Since he is openly admitting that he is undermining the Constitution, he should be impeached.
Breyer's got to go.
"Look beyond the Constitution's text" my @ss!
Strange then that neither the word "democratic" or the word "democratic" appear in the document. "Republican" does appear, in Art. IV section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
We have a representative republic, not a democracy.
Exactly!
Funny, I didn't know that the Supreme Courts job was to promote political rights of minorities. Not even mentioned in there. We needed to vote last election if for no reason other than this!
Very much agreed.
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.