Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer Jabs Those Who Read Constitution Literally

Newsday ^ | 10/23/01

[11th Earl of Mar]

NEW YORK -- Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in a subtle jab at his conservative colleagues, said those who favor a literal interpretation of the Constitution aren't necessarily following the framers' wishes.

The men who wrote the Constitution left many important areas open to interpretation, Breyer said in a speech Monday at New York University School of Law.

[11th Earl of Mar]

The liberals want to have it both ways. When it is abortion, the Constitution is a 'living breathing document' that mandates states allow abortion on demand. And when liberals wanted Gore for president, they were erroneously claiming 'literal interpretation' and 'states rights.'

[WIMom]

"Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- tend to be more open to contemporary interpretations."

Translation: If it fits our agenda.

I don't expect anything less from Breyer. (Where's the gag alert? hehehe)

[I am still Casey]

Breyer cited campaign finance reform as a current issue that warrants a contemporary constitutional interpretation.

Yo Breyer! Can someone clue this idiot into the fact that September 11th wiped Campaign Finance Reform off the slate! Gone, dead, buried, kaput -- and not a moment too soon.

[jlogajan]

Judges should be wary of enforcing a strict reading of the Constitution, Breyer said.

Why? If anything goes, that's just another option. He should be happy with that interpretation as any other.

[FiddlePig]

If Breyer and his ilk prevail, we are no longer a free people!

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Thread I

[DrDavid]

To bad the title is incorrect. It should read:
Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer Jabs Those Who Read Constitution Literally

[dubyagee]

The four others -- Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- tend to be more open to contemporary interpretations.

In other words, tend to be more open to their own private, individual, without basis, interpretations.

[Mr. Bird]

"Those more literalist judges who emphasize language, history, tradition and precedent cannot justify their practices by claiming that is what the framers wanted," Breyer said, "For the framers did not say specifically what factors judges should emphasize when seeking to interpret the Constitution's open language."

You see, you shouldn't try to determine what the Founders wanted by what they wrote. You need to make it up as you go along. Why "emphasize" anything? To what "open language" does he refer? He's making my point for me, for cryin' out loud.

[LibWhacker]

Yep, more "living document" BS by people who think the Constitution says whatever they say it says. The Constitution means nothing to these people.

[Tench_Coxe]

I also was rather astounded at that statement, especially when it comes from a Supreme Court Justice. How can one know what the Framers of the Constitution intended without reading what was written by the Framers, understanding the writings influencing the minds of the Framers, and subsequent rulings from the early days of the Republic?

There is a distinct disconnect in Breyer's statement.

[Wolfie]

If the Constitution means what is says, then why the need for the Supreme Court?

[Southack]

Note To Breyer: GWB will outlast you and appoint your successor.

[TheDon]

I'm also surprised that Breyer would admit that he does not believe in the rule of law.

[DiamondDon1]

Breyer noted the Constitution "does not define the freedom of speech in any detail. The nation's founders did not speak directly about campaign contributions."

The Constitution also does not say that a judge in the highest court should not make stupid statements. Apparently Breyer has chosen to take the liberal interpretation...

[4CJ]

For the clueless idiots on the Supreme Court (and other courts as well), the 9^th and 10^th Amendments are there for a reason.

And if my statement offended any one of them, I guess that means I hit the nail on the head.

[Van Jenerette]

SUBJECT: The Constitution is The Property of the People - Not the Court!

excerpts from
ten foundations for America's future

---

GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE		The Constitution provides the legitimate foundations of this country as a nation that is of the people and by the people
		We, the people, are the caretakers of the Constitution of the United States. Our charge is to pass on to future generations of Americans the rights and privileges that have been passed to us for over two centuries. It is a trust. The notion that Supreme Court Justices, government officials or elite scholars are the only Americans who may offer worthwhile opinions on constitutional issues is far too narrow, and open to error. At most, their years of study and review offer a snapshot view when put into perspective along side the centuries the document has existed. Our Constitution, and interpretations of it, belong as much to the proprietor of a small business, the homemaker, the college freshman, the taxi driver, and the newly naturalized immigrant as it does to any American. We must guard this document and the Bill of Rights with vigilance. About the Writer.... Van Jenerette is a Senior Policy adivisor to U.S. Rep. Henry Brown, 1st Congressional District, South Carolina. He served as a Congressional Staff Assistant to U.S. Rep. Arthur Ravenel, Jr., 1st Congressional District, South Carolina from 1992 to 1994 and was a candidate for the 1st District Congressional seat in the 2000 election. Jenerette is a Ph.D. Candidate in Sociology at the University of South Carolina, where he has also taught Sociology. Van presently teaches Political Science and Sociology as a full time faculty member at Southeastern Community College, and he teaches Social Theory at Coastal Carolina University. He is a U.S. Army veteran; he has studied five languages and has lived in three foreign countries and is the father of six children. Jenerette is married to Katherine Schmidt of Newport News, Virginia who served with the US Army in Operation Desert Storm and now teaches American History and Western Civilization.

Our Republic...If we can keep it... | Van's Homepage | US Congress2000 | Desert Storm Book Preview |

�

[isthisnickcool]

So, anything ever written by Breyer might mean something else too? Maybe what he said here is not really what he said? Or meant to say? Is this one of those "is is" things?

I wonder whay people like doofus Breyer refer to the document as a "living document" when they really think it's mostly dead?

The US Constitution is our "glass slipper". Either it fits or it does not.

[Twodees]

Nonsense. That little communist Breyer will still be spouting his claptrap long after Bush is out of office. If Bush gets the chance to appoint a justice, he'll appoint some mealy-mouthed jerkoff who has kissed the proper backsides, just as he has done with his cabinet. Where you get all this faith in Bush, I'll never understand.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Good point. I am beginning to see Roe v. Wade in a 'living and breathing' way. I think it means only what future justices says it means.