[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.

[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.

[Southack]

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

[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.

[Timesink]

The bleatings of a broken man who realizes his precious worldview is on the way out.

[scalia_#1]

Breyer said, "For the framers did not say specifically what factors judges should emphasize when seeking to interpret the Constitution's open language."

Acutally, I couldn't agree more with Justice Breyer. The Framers never provided any guidance on how to interpret the Constitution. Oh, hold on...

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.
Federalist No. 78

Never mind.

[Moby Grape]

I ti is VERY scary to think that someone is SWORN to uphold the Consitution thinks they are sworn to uphold it as THEY interpret.

[tahiti]

"When it is abortion, the Constitution is a 'living breathing document' that mandates states allow abortion on demand."

Let me clear up this imprecise phrase.

1--The Constitution does not mandate the states allow abortion on demand.

2--Roe v Wade was a "strict constructionist" ruling, not a ruling decided on the premise of a "living, breathing document."

Justice Blackmun cited the Ninth Amendment as the constitutional basis for "prohibiting" the states from making abortion illegal.

The Ninth Amendments states: "The enumeration in the Contitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

On the assumption (erroneous I might add) that a fetus is part of woman's body, she has a retained right, that cannot be denied or disparaged by any government body.

Unquestionably "strict constructionist."

[Gritty]

The slogan used to be "Impeach Earl Warren!"

I think it is time to change it to

"Impeach Stephen Breyer!"

[connectthedots]

Five of the nine Supreme Court justices generally vote in favor of a literal interpretation -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor.

Contrary to what the socialist (I refuse to call them liberal) Breyer thinks, Scalia has specifically stated that he is not a Constitutional literalist; he is a Constitutional textualist. He bases his opinions first on the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution and the context or circumstances under which a particular section of the Constituion was adopted and particularily studies what was the intent of each provision in the Constitution.

In a sense, I believe the Constitution is a 'living document' is much the way that the Bible is a 'living document'. The truth does not change and what was true at the time there were written is still true today. It is the socialists who are trying to kill the 'living Constitution'.

[First_Salute]

Guy's an anarchist.

He argues against the basis of a contract!

And he's lying, because he is not admitting his purposeful mis-representation of history, the truth of which, is that considerable failure analysis of past goverments and governance, was engaged in by the framers.

The flexibility originally intended for the Constitution, was provided for by the amendment process; not, by contemporary dismissal of historical bases for the Constitution's provisions.

The Justice is purposefully misleading people away from what he actually knows to be true, and doing so for his personal and political aims.

Some of the most fundamental "fore-sight" within the Constitution, is found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. These amendments were never intended to apply to the first decade of the country and then lapse.

But that is what the Justice wishes for the people to believe.

He is un-noble. What a bastard.