Former Justice Stephen Breyer says that if you interpret the Constitution they way it reads, it will give us a Constitution we do not want.

[Votto]

MSN

In a recent interview with Politico, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer claimed that the current conservative majority on the court will give the U.S. a Constitution that "no one wants."

Breyer spoke to the media outlet ahead of the release of his new book, titled, "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism." In it, the former liberal justice spent time criticizing the interpretations his former conservative colleagues have been making in landmark Supreme Court cases.

He elaborated on these points in the interview. Politico Magazine senior writer Ankush Khardori reported, "If the court continues to deploy their methods of interpretation, Breyer told me, ‘We will have a Constitution that no one wants.’ It’s a remarkable statement from a former Supreme Court justice."

The journalist asked Breyer about his point in the book warning about "originalism," noting that Breyer has called this lens of interpretation "inherently ‘regressive,’" writing that it "will not permit modern solutions to modern problems" as well as consigning "us to a set of views and values that predominated during a period when many groups of people today were not equal citizens."

Breyer affirmed those points in the interview, declaring, "When the founders were thinking about and writing the words of the Constitution and protecting certain basic rights in the Constitution, women were not really part of the political process. They didn’t have a right to vote, and there was slavery, and the slaves weren’t part of [the political process either]."

This is a good illustration between conservatism vs. and the Left. The Left honestly believes that the original Constitution codifies slavery and women as second class citizens, when conservatives do not. In fact, the Constitution does not really touch on the issue of slavery except for the fugitive clause.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.[5]

As in the other references in the Constitution dealing with slavery, the words "slave" and "slavery" are not used in this clause. Historian Donald Fehrenbacher believes that throughout the Constitution there was the intent to make it clear that slavery existed only under state law, not federal law. In this instance, Fehrenbacher concludes:

The genius of the Constitution allowed basic freedoms for all without mentioning race or sex which is why it can still be used today with our current laws. The implication for not mentioning race or sex is that it has no real relevance, something that is far more Progressive than what you see the Left espouse every single day.

There is also the 3/5 person clause in the Constitution which dealt with population levels related to representation. Most think of the compromise as racist, that a black slave is not 3/5 of a human being because they are a full human being. But in reality, it was used by abolitionists to reduce the political power of the slave states. Slave states could not use the slaves to be counted as population, thus reducing their power in Congress. I would even argue that they should not have been counted at all since they were not being represented by their representatives.

That aside, these items were later repealed in the Constitution, and rightly so.

The Constitution never made the claim that it was perfect, which is why the Founding Fathers allowed it to be repealed or added to. But it seems to me that there is an underlying hatred by the Left towards the Constitution. It is an attitude that the Constitution is so fundamentally flawed, repealing and/or amending the items that you see as having flaws is not the solution, rather, the solution is simply to interpret those flaws out of the text itself, thus bypassing the amendment or repealing process. It is the attitude that it takes far too much time and effort to do so, and it takes far too many voices and opinions to hear, so the only solution is to interpret what you don't like in the Constitution away instead.

 

[Marener]

I always thought the constitution was there to protect our freedoms, not “allow” them.

This author is saying that the constitution is brilliant because it didn’t deny freedom to women and minorities. To me, thats saying the constitution does a really half ass job at what we need it to do.

 

[TNHarley]

Leftists shouldnt be on the SC.
The constitution restricts the govt and leftists HATE THAT. They say it all the time. Even when they currently sit on the court.
Leftists are the antithesis to progress and freedom.

 

[DGS49]

The Warren Court and subsequent versions of it showed us how a small group of Leftists in positions of un-elected power can change the founding document of our government into something that they liked better. This is called, "Legislating from the bench." The problem with it - aside from perverting our founding principles - is that it is almost impossible for the People, acting through their elected representatives, to re-implement the basic principles.

While abortion was the best example, we also have things like the virtual elimination of the death penalty, the mandate of gay "marriage," and the Exclusionary Rule, which frees thousands of violent criminals annually, because the evidence against them was procured in a way that the Court deems not-nice. None of this was in the Constitution, and yet we are still stuck with them.

 

[pknopp]

This is hardly true for all and the founders created a venue for when we didn't want what the Constitution called for.

People don't want to put in the work to do that though.

 

[TNHarley]

the mandate of gay "marriage,"

If you religious cucks would have kept govt out of your ceremony, it wouldnt be mandated. But alas.
Too bad the govt cant discriminate. So cry about it

 

[ColonelAngus]

“WE”

Eff you Breyer.

You are not “WE”.

 

[Votto]

The real reason the former justice went on his rant, however, was because of Roe vs. Wade being overturned.

In a recent interview with NBC’s "Meet The Press," Breyer expressed his feelings on the Dobbs ruling, telling host Kristen Welker he had hoped he and his fellow justices at the time could have come to a "compromise" rather than overturning Roe V. Wade.

During that interview, he also called the leak of the Dobbs opinion signaling the end of Roe V. Wade "unfortunate."

Later in the interview, Breyer described what could result from this originalist interpretation of the Constitution over time, stating it "will move the interpretation of statutes away from the direction of trying to help people," and "will move the law away from the direction of trying to produce a society where 340 or 330 or 320 million people of every race, every religion, every point of view, can live together more peacefully and productively."

This was the real rub that caused him to speak out in such a way.

I would have loved for someone to ask the former justice where our rights come from. Do they come from God or man?

A reporter from Politico lashed out at Christian Nationalism, whatever that is, by mocking them for thinking our rights come from God and not man. The problem is, is that this was precisely the view of the Founding Fathers.

MSN

In reality, the joke was on the reporter for being ignorant enough not to know this. But knowing this today, does she care? I say no. I say that the average Progressive today does not believe our rights come from God, and instead they come from men like Joe Biden and they could care less what the Founding Fathers thought about the issue because it is just one of their many flaws. This means that there is no real right or wrong, which is why the goal is always achieving the majority consensus because consensus is now what is now used to measure to see if something is right or wrong. Now that the state manipulates both the media and education to steer consensus, the gospel of democracy is preached on every corner to proclaim what is right or wrong, good or bad. That is now why you see state by state adding to their constitution the right to gambling, smoking weed, or abortion by a mere consensus vote as these things that were once considered a vice, are now considered good for society.

Having said that, the irony is that those in power don't really care what the majority thinks. That is the dirty little secret. For example, do they really care that about 80% of the population wants term limits for Congress or some sort of balanced budget amendment? Nope. Does former justice Breyer? Nope. But propaganda can't seem to fix that as the population inherently knows it needs to be done despite what those in power wish you to think, so they just ignore it.

 

[Votto]

I have said all this to say this, there will always be an element of society that believes our rights come from God and not Potato head. That means that no matter what man says, there will be a value placed on man as being equal, no matter their race, sex, or gestational development. This is the rub former justices like Breyer cannot wrap their minds around. I could care less what he thinks, but if the truth be known, the reverse is true. If there was a consensus that abortion was bad, Breyer and his minions would be fighting to change public opinion on the issue.

And the Left will never admit this, but there is also a contingent of non-religious people who are concerned about the issue of abortion. After all, when does a human become a human? This is never asked. This is never attempted to be answered. Why? Because that my friends is opening a whole bag of worms, a bag the Left can never win. It is the same question that was asked of the slave, are the equals? Are they really human?

That is the rub that no court ruling, constitutional amendment, or legislation can ever fix or be agreed upon. The dirty little secret is, neither side really gives a damn what the Constitution has to say about it. If it disagrees with them, they will "fix" it.

So, deal with it and stop your whining!!!

It will forever be an open wound upon society

 

[Votto]

Leftists shouldnt be on the SC.
The constitution restricts the govt and leftists HATE THAT. They say it all the time. Even when they currently sit on the court.
Leftists are the antithesis to progress and freedom.

At least they are admitting it now.

Baby steps.

But their mission is always to radically transform society, no matter the state of the said society. Thai is why the favor doing away with any road blocks like the words in the Constitution.

 

[Independentthinker]

MSN

In a recent interview with Politico, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer claimed that the current conservative majority on the court will give the U.S. a Constitution that "no one wants."

Breyer spoke to the media outlet ahead of the release of his new book, titled, "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism." In it, the former liberal justice spent time criticizing the interpretations his former conservative colleagues have been making in landmark Supreme Court cases.

He elaborated on these points in the interview. Politico Magazine senior writer Ankush Khardori reported, "If the court continues to deploy their methods of interpretation, Breyer told me, ‘We will have a Constitution that no one wants.’ It’s a remarkable statement from a former Supreme Court justice."

The journalist asked Breyer about his point in the book warning about "originalism," noting that Breyer has called this lens of interpretation "inherently ‘regressive,’" writing that it "will not permit modern solutions to modern problems" as well as consigning "us to a set of views and values that predominated during a period when many groups of people today were not equal citizens."

Breyer affirmed those points in the interview, declaring, "When the founders were thinking about and writing the words of the Constitution and protecting certain basic rights in the Constitution, women were not really part of the political process. They didn’t have a right to vote, and there was slavery, and the slaves weren’t part of [the political process either]."

This is a good illustration between conservatism vs. and the Left. The Left honestly believes that the original Constitution codifies slavery and women as second class citizens, when conservatives do not. In fact, the Constitution does not really touch on the issue of slavery except for the fugitive clause.


As in the other references in the Constitution dealing with slavery, the words "slave" and "slavery" are not used in this clause. Historian Donald Fehrenbacher believes that throughout the Constitution there was the intent to make it clear that slavery existed only under state law, not federal law. In this instance, Fehrenbacher concludes:

The genius of the Constitution allowed basic freedoms for all without mentioning race or sex which is why it can still be used today with our current laws. The implication for not mentioning race or sex is that it has no real relevance, something that is far more Progressive than what you see the Left espouse every single day.

There is also the 3/5 person clause in the Constitution which dealt with population levels related to representation. Most think of the compromise as racist, that a black slave is not 3/5 of a human being because they are a full human being. But in reality, it was used by abolitionists to reduce the political power of the slave states. Slave states could not use the slaves to be counted as population, thus reducing their power in Congress. I would even argue that they should not have been counted at all since they were not being represented by their representatives.

That aside, these items were later repealed in the Constitution, and rightly so.

The Constitution never made the claim that it was perfect, which is why the Founding Fathers allowed it to be repealed or added to. But it seems to me that there is an underlying hatred by the Left towards the Constitution. It is an attitude that the Constitution is so fundamentally flawed, repealing and/or amending the items that you see as having flaws is not the solution, rather, the solution is simply to interpret those flaws out of the text itself, thus bypassing the amendment or repealing process. It is the attitude that it takes far too much time and effort to do so, and it takes far too many voices and opinions to hear, so the only solution is to interpret what you don't like in the Constitution away instead.

Democrats don't want a Constitution at all. They want mob rule.

 

[Rogue AI]

I always thought the constitution was there to protect our freedoms, not “allow” them.

This author is saying that the constitution is brilliant because it didn’t deny freedom to women and minorities. To me, thats saying the constitution does a really half ass job at what we need it to do.

The Constitution sets the framework, the Founders understood it was imperfect. If we find fault in it, it is up to us to amend the Constitution. Sadly nobody wants to do things right, and just whine to the courts for a false solution these days.

 

[Foxfyre]

MSN

In a recent interview with Politico, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer claimed that the current conservative majority on the court will give the U.S. a Constitution that "no one wants."

Breyer spoke to the media outlet ahead of the release of his new book, titled, "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism." In it, the former liberal justice spent time criticizing the interpretations his former conservative colleagues have been making in landmark Supreme Court cases.

He elaborated on these points in the interview. Politico Magazine senior writer Ankush Khardori reported, "If the court continues to deploy their methods of interpretation, Breyer told me, ‘We will have a Constitution that no one wants.’ It’s a remarkable statement from a former Supreme Court justice."

The journalist asked Breyer about his point in the book warning about "originalism," noting that Breyer has called this lens of interpretation "inherently ‘regressive,’" writing that it "will not permit modern solutions to modern problems" as well as consigning "us to a set of views and values that predominated during a period when many groups of people today were not equal citizens."

Breyer affirmed those points in the interview, declaring, "When the founders were thinking about and writing the words of the Constitution and protecting certain basic rights in the Constitution, women were not really part of the political process. They didn’t have a right to vote, and there was slavery, and the slaves weren’t part of [the political process either]."

This is a good illustration between conservatism vs. and the Left. The Left honestly believes that the original Constitution codifies slavery and women as second class citizens, when conservatives do not. In fact, the Constitution does not really touch on the issue of slavery except for the fugitive clause.


As in the other references in the Constitution dealing with slavery, the words "slave" and "slavery" are not used in this clause. Historian Donald Fehrenbacher believes that throughout the Constitution there was the intent to make it clear that slavery existed only under state law, not federal law. In this instance, Fehrenbacher concludes:

The genius of the Constitution allowed basic freedoms for all without mentioning race or sex which is why it can still be used today with our current laws. The implication for not mentioning race or sex is that it has no real relevance, something that is far more Progressive than what you see the Left espouse every single day.

There is also the 3/5 person clause in the Constitution which dealt with population levels related to representation. Most think of the compromise as racist, that a black slave is not 3/5 of a human being because they are a full human being. But in reality, it was used by abolitionists to reduce the political power of the slave states. Slave states could not use the slaves to be counted as population, thus reducing their power in Congress. I would even argue that they should not have been counted at all since they were not being represented by their representatives.

That aside, these items were later repealed in the Constitution, and rightly so.

The Constitution never made the claim that it was perfect, which is why the Founding Fathers allowed it to be repealed or added to. But it seems to me that there is an underlying hatred by the Left towards the Constitution. It is an attitude that the Constitution is so fundamentally flawed, repealing and/or amending the items that you see as having flaws is not the solution, rather, the solution is simply to interpret those flaws out of the text itself, thus bypassing the amendment or repealing process. It is the attitude that it takes far too much time and effort to do so, and it takes far too many voices and opinions to hear, so the only solution is to interpret what you don't like in the Constitution away instead.

Amen. You have to look at the Constitution as it was intended plus the amendments that have greatly improved the injustices or impractical clauses in the original Constitution which was written for their time and their culture with the intention of limiting government as much as reasonable while allow maximum liberty to the people to govern themselves.

Stephen Breyer emphasizes the leftist views that power, control, assignment of rights should be with the central government on the theory that it knows what is best for the people and country than they know themselves.

 

[Dragonlady]

MSN

In a recent interview with Politico, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer claimed that the current conservative majority on the court will give the U.S. a Constitution that "no one wants."

Breyer spoke to the media outlet ahead of the release of his new book, titled, "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism." In it, the former liberal justice spent time criticizing the interpretations his former conservative colleagues have been making in landmark Supreme Court cases.

He elaborated on these points in the interview. Politico Magazine senior writer Ankush Khardori reported, "If the court continues to deploy their methods of interpretation, Breyer told me, ‘We will have a Constitution that no one wants.’ It’s a remarkable statement from a former Supreme Court justice."

The journalist asked Breyer about his point in the book warning about "originalism," noting that Breyer has called this lens of interpretation "inherently ‘regressive,’" writing that it "will not permit modern solutions to modern problems" as well as consigning "us to a set of views and values that predominated during a period when many groups of people today were not equal citizens."

Breyer affirmed those points in the interview, declaring, "When the founders were thinking about and writing the words of the Constitution and protecting certain basic rights in the Constitution, women were not really part of the political process. They didn’t have a right to vote, and there was slavery, and the slaves weren’t part of [the political process either]."

This is a good illustration between conservatism vs. and the Left. The Left honestly believes that the original Constitution codifies slavery and women as second class citizens, when conservatives do not. In fact, the Constitution does not really touch on the issue of slavery except for the fugitive clause.


As in the other references in the Constitution dealing with slavery, the words "slave" and "slavery" are not used in this clause. Historian Donald Fehrenbacher believes that throughout the Constitution there was the intent to make it clear that slavery existed only under state law, not federal law. In this instance, Fehrenbacher concludes:

The genius of the Constitution allowed basic freedoms for all without mentioning race or sex which is why it can still be used today with our current laws. The implication for not mentioning race or sex is that it has no real relevance, something that is far more Progressive than what you see the Left espouse every single day.

There is also the 3/5 person clause in the Constitution which dealt with population levels related to representation. Most think of the compromise as racist, that a black slave is not 3/5 of a human being because they are a full human being. But in reality, it was used by abolitionists to reduce the political power of the slave states. Slave states could not use the slaves to be counted as population, thus reducing their power in Congress. I would even argue that they should not have been counted at all since they were not being represented by their representatives.

That aside, these items were later repealed in the Constitution, and rightly so.

The Constitution never made the claim that it was perfect, which is why the Founding Fathers allowed it to be repealed or added to. But it seems to me that there is an underlying hatred by the Left towards the Constitution. It is an attitude that the Constitution is so fundamentally flawed, repealing and/or amending the items that you see as having flaws is not the solution, rather, the solution is simply to interpret those flaws out of the text itself, thus bypassing the amendment or repealing process. It is the attitude that it takes far too much time and effort to do so, and it takes far too many voices and opinions to hear, so the only solution is to interpret what you don't like in the Constitution away instead.

The Constitution was written to manage a small coastal agrarian country with no military ambitions. Not a sprawling coast to coast nation which is the greatest military power the world has ever seen.

Leftists shouldnt be on the SC.
The constitution restricts the govt and leftists HATE THAT. They say it all the time. Even when they currently sit on the court.
Leftists are the antithesis to progress and freedom.

Running a 21st Century superpower based on a Constitution written for a small agrarian coastal nation with no standing army, is the absolute anthithesis of progress or freedom.

The Founders KNEW that times would change and the Constitution needed to change with it. That’s why you can amend it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Thankfully he's former

 

[BluesLegend]

That lawless MF'er can amend the Constitution right? No he won't go there because he doesn't have the support of the American people to pass it. Instead he goes full lawless dictator and decides for himself to ignore the Constitution vs amending it as designed. Wow just wow! A justice on the highest court in the land, ignoring the Constitution and Law.

 

[BluesLegend]

Thankfully he's former

Hell yes, and all his former votes should be null and void.

 

[rippy38]

“WE”

Eff you Breyer.

You are not “WE”.

Justices like Breyer are why we are where we are as a Country today.

I'm glad he is a "former" Justice at this point.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

He views the Court as an oligarchy that can override laws through creative interpretation. That can block or force Executive action by judicial fiat. Like all Leftists he's fundamentally a tyrant.

 

[BluesLegend]

The guy just admitted he broke the law, his oath, and perpetrated a betrayal of the highest order on the American people.