Reading the Constitution: A Book Talk with Justice Stephen Breyer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 бер 2024
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer (Ret.) unveils his new book at the National Constitution Center in conversation with NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. In Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, Justice Breyer deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court's majority and makes the case for a better way to interpret the Constitution.
Register for upcoming programs: constitutioncenter.org/news-d...
Visit our media library to discover more online classes, podcasts, and Town Hall conversations: constitutioncenter.org/news-d...
Subscribe to the National Constitution Center on UA-cam: ua-cam.com/users/Constitu...
Follow the National Constitution Center on social media!
Facebook: / constitutionctr
Twitter: / constitutionctr
Instagram: / constitutionctr
Sign up for our newsletter: visitor.r20.constantcontact.c...
A GREAT TALK
vERT WISE, TY
Thank you for segment puts reality into perspective. 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲. Judging individuals some uneducated rule of law in position not earned but bought. Fair and impartial in judgements. Leave out personal emotions.
Pragmatism is inconsistent with "Rule of Law." The Legislative Branch is responsible for the design, development and maintenance and therefore the meaning of the Laws. SOTU using any other meaning constitutes 'legislating from the bench.' Doing that largely negates the self-correction and self-improvement mechanisms for our body of Laws, thereby doing more long term harm than any short term good it might do. SOTU is responsible for insisting that Congress resolve any ambiguities and conflicts in the body of Laws for which they are responsible i.e. SOTU needs to provide some basic Quality Assurance.
I'm a bit taken aback by Jeffrey's endorsement of Justice Breyer's description of his judicial philosophy as pragmatism? I've always known Justice Breyer to be a living constitutionalist, and there's nothing wrong with the term. Ascribing the name pragmatism to a judicial philosophy seems to me an attempt to re-brand Living Constitutionalists as moderate and the textualists anti-pragmatists. Is it not easier then to infer them to be radicals if they're not pragmatic in their interpretation? I certainly do not imagine Originalists regard Justice Breyer's judicial philosophy as pragmatic. This smells of politics to me. I've always admired Jeffrey Rosen for his commitment to non-partisanship, but I did not get the sense that Originalism was given a fair reading or interpretation by either Jeffrey or Justice Breyer. I've long listened to Justice Breyer speak of the court and law, especially when he would argue with Justice Scalia, but this did not come across as cogent and edifying. Even for Justice Breyer who is known to bounce around, I wish him the best.
" but I did not get the sense that Originalism was given a fair reading or interpretation by either Jeffrey or Justice Breyer". Maybe that's because it should be left to the originalist to give that meaning as neither men belong to that camp. Of course understanding what it is and isn't, I always like to go to one of my favorite scholars Erwin Chemerinsky. Enjoy. ua-cam.com/video/sPPmaijVDu0/v-deo.html
Maybe if legislators understood that it was the job of judges to interpret the words on the paper, they wouldn’t write ambiguous statutes. And if legislators didn’t assume judges would always rule their way because they think courts should be the enforcement mechanism of their policies, they wouldn’t get so mad when courts don’t rule the way they want them to.
They write vague statutes on purpose so they can be widely applied as needed. It's impossible to write a statute for every foreseeable and unforeseeable but applicable context because the world, technology and society is constantly changing. Judges are supposed to use the intent of statutes and then apply it to the case at hand. Legislators can't write specifically to every case that will land before a judge. It is a process to come to consensus to pass legislation. It's vague to it can be useful today and hopefully tomorrow.
Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address: The sacrifice of over 50 000 men who lay down their lives in the battle of the Gettysburg declared that the United States had to stand as a country where all men are created equal and should be treated as equal and should be treated as equals.
No doubt he's a very nice man. But he feels the Constitution malleable. Not sure why anyone would ever think that. Words were written down and they had meanings. Why would a judge ever think he's their job to change what the words meant when they were written?
Because it's supposed to be a living document. Honest question: How can the Constitution that was written hundreds of years ago when things in society were drastically different be useful if only the literal meanings of the words and how they applied then are used to decide the issues of today's society?
What Justice Breyer is saying is not too far from what I think you might mean. If the Founders advocated for a more equitable society even though it was not the reality of when the Constitution was originally written, which imbued the meaning of the words including, "We the People", then we can't simply look only at the words but also their purpose and intent.
As Justice Breyer points out, women and slaves were not part of the democratic process nor were people of color when the Constitution was written. A textualist might perhaps argue that since these groups were not part of the intent of the Framers, then women and people of color shouldn't vote today. The world changes. That's the main point. We need to look at what was the purpose and intent of the statutes and the Constitution in addition to the literal meaning of the words such as what does "judicial" or "executive" mean. We're in 2024. How are we supposed to have a functioning society if we try to use the purpose, thinking and intent from a society that no longer exists?
@@camiliafuentes3509 “supposed to be a living document”. According to who? What or who gives a Supreme Court justice the power to change the meaning of the Constitution? You don’t like what it says? See article 5. See article 1.