Buckeye Reporter

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer has come under scrutiny for his recent book, "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism," where he criticizes the traditional legal doctrines of originalism and textualism. Breyer's approach, which he describes as constitutional pragmatism, has raised concerns among legal scholars and commentators.

According to Justice Breyer, originalism and textualism, favored by several sitting Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, are flawed approaches to interpreting the Constitution. He argues for a "living Constitution" that adapts to modern interpretations rather than being anchored by the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

In his book, Justice Breyer specifically takes issue with the Second Amendment, stating that applying originalism and textualism to this amendment is an impossible task. He criticizes these approaches for not considering modern developments and practical realities related to gun violence.

Regarding the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which affirmed the individual right to bear arms, Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, questioning the Founders' ability to foresee the challenges of regulating firearms in modern society. He argues that judges should consider the evolving nature of society when interpreting constitutional rights.

However, critics argue that Justice Breyer's views undermine the timeless principles of limited government and individual liberty enshrined in the Constitution. They believe that his approach could weaken fundamental rights and lead to judicial overreach.

It is not uncommon for retired justices to publish books critiquing past Supreme Court decisions, as seen with Justice Breyer and his predecessor, Justice John Paul Stevens. However, some observers caution against using these books as guides for future judicial decisions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the original meaning of the law.

In conclusion, while Justice Breyer's perspectives have sparked debate within legal circles, the core principles of constitutional interpretation and the role of the judiciary in upholding fundamental rights remain subjects of ongoing discussion.

Republished with permission from NSSF.