{"id":13374,"date":"2024-04-13T14:46:09","date_gmt":"2024-04-13T14:46:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=13374"},"modified":"2024-04-13T14:46:10","modified_gmt":"2024-04-13T14:46:10","slug":"a-supreme-court-justice-sounds-a-warning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=13374","title":{"rendered":"A Supreme Court Justice Sounds a Warning"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>&#8220;If the court continues to deploy their methods of interpretation, Breyer told me, \u201cWe will have a Constitution that no one wants.\u201d It\u2019s a remarkable statement from a former Supreme Court justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The conflict between the left and right on the court is virtually impossible to bridge. Conservative justices broadly favor a theory of constitutional interpretation known as \u201coriginalism,\u201d which purports to interpret the Constitution in accordance with the public meaning of the text when enacted, and a theory of statutory interpretation known as \u201ctextualism,\u201d which prioritizes the text over considerations like congressional purpose and practical consequences when interpreting laws passed by Congress. Liberal justices like Breyer had long embraced theories that were flexible in nature \u2014 that allowed judges to account for a variety of inputs when answering hard legal questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For Breyer, the problem with conservatives\u2019 approach goes beyond the desirability of specific outcomes in areas like abortion,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/nymag.com\/intelligencer\/2023\/06\/supreme-court-affirmative-action-decision-is-just-the-start.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">affirmative action<\/a>&nbsp;or&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/nymag.com\/intelligencer\/2023\/06\/on-student-loans-supreme-court-changed-the-rules.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">executive power<\/a>&nbsp;\u2014 areas in which the conservative majority has already significantly changed constitutional law. Breyer argues that the conservatives\u2019 theories are inherently fraught, regressive and anti-democratic, and that they are just as prone to mischief and misuse as the more flexible and expansive theories that conservative judges reject.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/magazine\/2024\/03\/26\/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-interview-00148948\">https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/magazine\/2024\/03\/26\/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-interview-00148948<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;If the court continues to deploy their methods of interpretation, Breyer told me, \u201cWe will have a Constitution that no one wants.\u201d It\u2019s a remarkable statement from a former Supreme Court justice.<br \/>\nThe conflict between the left and right on the court is virtually impossible to bridge. Conservative justices broadly favor a theory of constitutional interpretation known as \u201coriginalism,\u201d which purports to interpret the Constitution in accordance with the public meaning of the text when enacted, and a theory of statutory interpretation known as \u201ctextualism,\u201d which prioritizes the text over considerations like congressional purpose and practical consequences when interpreting laws passed by Congress. Liberal justices like Breyer had long embraced theories that were flexible in nature \u2014 that allowed judges to account for a variety of inputs when answering hard legal questions.<\/p>\n<p>For Breyer, the problem with conservatives\u2019 approach goes beyond the desirability of specific outcomes in areas like abortion, affirmative action or executive power \u2014 areas in which the conservative majority has already significantly changed constitutional law. Breyer argues that the conservatives\u2019 theories are inherently fraught, regressive and anti-democratic, and that they are just as prone to mischief and misuse as the more flexible and expansive theories that conservative judges reject.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/magazine\/2024\/03\/26\/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-interview-00148948<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[790,1213,528],"class_list":["post-13374","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-courts","tag-judiciary","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13374","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13374"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13374\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13375,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13374\/revisions\/13375"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}