Breyer Warns on Constitution Laws
By DUNSTAN PRIAL, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday October 23 11:04 AM ET
NEW YORK (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in a subtle jab at his conservative colleagues, said those who favor a literal interpretation of the Constitution aren't necessarily following the framers' wishes.
The men who wrote the Constitution left many important areas open to interpretation, Breyer said in a speech Monday at New York University School of Law.
``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.''
Judges should be wary of enforcing a strict reading of the Constitution, Breyer said.
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. The four others - Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - tend to be more open to contemporary interpretations.
Breyer cited campaign finance reform as a current issue that warrants a contemporary constitutional interpretation. Some argue that limiting campaign contributions violates First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.
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.''
Breyer said campaign finance laws help promote participation in the democratic process and ``help to further the kind of open public political discussion that the First Amendment also seeks to encourage, not simply as an end but also as a means to achieve a workable democracy.''
Earlier Monday, Breyer visited the site of the World Trade Center.
``I can't tell you anything you don't know,'' he said. ``But it was important for me to see and share this experience with New York.''
*
Stephen G. Breyer Bio
Stephen G. Breyer was born in San Francisco in 1938 to a lawyer and the daughter of an immigrant Polish cobbler. After attending a magnet high school, Breyer studied at Stanford, where he graduated in 1959 with Great Distinction. He then attended Oxford University as a Marshall Scholar, graduating with 1st Class Honors in 1961. In 1964, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and was the law review Articles Editor. In 1967, Breyer married Joanna Hare, a clinical psychologist who works with cancerstricken children. They have three children: Chloe, Nell, and Michael. In his spare time, the 2nd wealthiest justice (with assets exceeding $7.3 million) enjoys biking, jogging, cooking, and reading.
Breyer clerked for Supreme Court Justice Goldberg in 1964-5. Two years later he began teaching at Harvard Law, where his courses included administrative law, antitrust, and economic regulation. He also taught in Australia and Rome. Since then he has written several books and articles on administrative law and economic regulation.
Breyer has served the government in many capacities. He was an antitrust assistant for the Department of Justice in 19657, Assistant Special Prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973, and as both Special and Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1980, President Carter nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where he served as Chief Judge from 1990 until 1994.
In 1993, President Clinton considered Breyer for the judgeship he ultimately awarded Ruth Bader Ginsburg. One year later, Clinton had nothing but praise for Blackmun's replacement. Amid criticism that he chose him to avoid a confirmation battle, Clinton touted Breyer's talents for consensusbuilding and explaining the law in accessible terms. He was confirmed almost unanimously and now oversees the 10th Circuit.
Breyer's judicial philosophy is one of pragmatism, often espousing neither a strong liberal nor a conservative ideology. He avoids brightline rules and looks for common sense solutions. He tends to sway from his centrist stance on issues to protect the rights of criminals and to favor regulations protecting the environment, health, and safety. Breyer tends to vote against government regulation of business and supports the enforcement of strong antitrust laws. He often considers Congressional intent, not just the plain words of legislation. His opinions are written in simple language, and he has taken an oath to be as footnotefree as possible.
Critics view him as "brilliant but passionless, given to fine distinctions but lacking an overall vision of the Constitution." They claim he shows Little interest in civil rights, privacy, and First Amendment issues. They assert his previous rulings place him on both sides of controversial issues.
On the Supreme Court, Breyer has been described as quickwitted and prone to questioning. Termed by some to be Scalia's counterbalance, Breyer has already indulged in intellectual battles with the staunch conservative. During consideration of Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm the two justices traded quotations from Robert Frost's poetry. Scalia praised the Constitution's separation of powers, stating, "Good fences make good neighbors," while Breyer injected, "before I built a wall I'd ask to know / What I was walling in or walling out." In another case, when Scalia mused during oral argument regarding lawyer advertising that he was lucky never to have practiced law, Breyer retorted, "It might have helped."
dailynews.yahoo.com
law.upenn.edu
* * * |
