In book, more of Breyer's dissents on originalism

[usregimechange]

Stephen G. Breyer, left, and Antonin Scalia are frequently at odds, especially over the concept of originalism, which Scalia champions. (Chip Somodevilla)


When President Obama faced openings on the Supreme Court in his first two years in office, a frequent request from liberals was for someone to stand up to Justice Antonin Scalia. Give us someone who'll take him on, they said, and tell him why he's wrong.

In fact, though, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1994, has been doing just that for years.

Scalia and Breyer are frequent debating partners, and Breyer has written not one but two books critiquing originalism, the method of constitutional interpretation most associated with Scalia. It says the best way to interpret the Constitution is by looking at the meaning of the words at the time they were written.

Breyer's new book, "Making Our Democracy Work," underlines their disagreement in a chapter called "The Basic Approach."

"The court should reject approaches to interpreting the Constitution that consider the document's scope and application as fixed at the moment of framing," Breyer writes. "Rather, the court should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/19/AR2010091904983.html

[Gman]

1. Bush v Gore would have never been decided as it was

if they believed in originalism. If Scalia truly believed the 14th amendment was violated in the Florida 2000 election as the decision said, Scalia would not be going around making comments that the 14th amendment doesn't cover sexual orientation issues because the writers of the 14th amendment right after the Civil War never considered the amendment being applied to elections.

Just one example of their extreme inconsistency.

[Uncle Joe]

3. +Infinity with a cherry on top.

:thumbsup:

[el_bryanto]

2. Originalism strikes me as taking one interpretation and declaring it the winner

Rather than acknowledging there are legitimate differences of opinion.

Bryant