Current Events > Justice Breyer sounds alarm about Court's direction

(+) Yeah! (+)

Justice Stephen Breyers Supreme Court chambers are not quite as grand as those he occupied before he retired in 2022, but they are still pretty nice. As before, they include a working fireplace, which was crackling when I went to visit him on a temperate afternoon in late February to talk about his new book.In earlier interviews, Breyer could be rambling and opaque. This time he was direct. He said he meant to sound an alarm about the direction of the Supreme Court.

Something important is going on, he said. The court has taken a wrong turn, he said, and it is not too late to turn back.

The book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, will be published March 26, the day the Supreme Court hears its next major abortion case, on access to pills used to terminate pregnancies.

The book devotes considerable attention to Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, the 2022 decision that eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. Breyer, who had dissented, wrote that the decision was stunningly naive in saying it was returning the question of abortion to the political process.

The Dobbs majoritys hope that legislatures and not courts will decide the abortion question will not be realized, he wrote.

We know the courts direction already

I just read the article TC quoted this morning, and I am eager to read the book.

I already know what Breyer is going to write, and the fact that we need to be practical in our approach to the application of the Constitution should not be this earth shattering concept that conservative jurists cant seem to grasp. But it will make me feel better to read some common sense about the law while the SC continues to be a raging trash fire.

"originalism" is nothing more than divination, where the conservative justices get to decide what anything means

furthermore, it allows a constant rhetorical strategy of "technicalities" in which anything not specifically mentioned is considered non-existent.

the EPA fiasco is the perfect example. if "originalism" were really applied, then they would see that the purpose of Congress creating the EPA was to allow it to regulate nature and shit. but they dont specifically mention wetlands or some bullshit and somehow they unravel the whole thing.

originalism for me, not for thee

Add in the court allowing Texas cops to set immigration policies.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80725515#24

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240319-supreme-court-lifts-hold-on-contentious-texas-immigration-law

CobraGT posted...

Add in the court allowing Texas cops to set immigration policies.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80725515#24

uhhh yeah....damn supreme court and their awesome gameplay?

I just came back to see new responses in this thread, and it is highly amusing to me that a word in my post that is absolutely not a curse word got auto bleeped.

I recall having the same problem when I tried to write the name of a certain Star Trek actor in another post,

How bout he resign before we have another RBG situation in the next Congress?

jefffan posted...

How bout he resign before we have another RBG situation in the next Congress?

He did derp

jefffan posted...

How bout he resign before we have another RBG situation in the next Congress?

Justice Jackson, one of his former clerks, has already replaced him.

Robot2600 posted...

"originalism" is nothing more than divination, where the conservative justices get to decide what anything means

That's all constitutional reading to be fair