Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said the agency has become increasingly politicized, reflecting partisan divisions across the country as the high court considers issues such as Donald Trump’s candidacy and abortion access. is pushing back against claims that it is becoming more and more
“I’ve never seen politics in a courtroom, and I’ve been a judge for 40 years,” Breyer told ABC’s “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl in an interview that aired Sunday. . “It’s not politics in the sense that I understood that word when I worked for the senator. [Ted] Kennedy. …No, that’s not it. It’s just not there. ”
Breyer, who retired in 2022, is the author of a new book, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism over Textualism.”
During his nearly 30 years on the high court, Breyer has seen the court’s ideological balance shift further to the right, with the justices now split 6-3 between conservatives and liberals.
But the justices’ rulings don’t match the ideological divide seen in the White House and Congress, Breyer said.
Rather, judges are driven by their interpretation of the law and the Constitution, their relationships with each other, and, to some extent, their awareness of how they are viewed by the public.
Appearing on “This Week,” he cited some of the broader dynamics at play in the court, including Roe v. Wade’s decision to overturn the national abortion access guarantee in 2022 and earlier this year. He declined to comment directly on the ruling, which included overturning a unanimous ruling handed down by former President Trump. His candidacy will be challenged under the Constitution’s “insurrection clause,” allowing him to remain on the 2024 ballot.
The case thrust the Supreme Court into the midst of a presidential election for the first time in nearly a quarter of a century, since the 2000 presidential election was decided with the landmark Bush v. Gore decision.
Breyer wrote in his dissent at the time that he believed the court should not have taken up the issue. He told “This Week” that dissenting opinions have real value, but so do unanimous rulings like the one that happened with Trump’s vote challenge.
“I’ve always thought that there’s nothing wrong with putting these things out there.” [dissents]. It brings out a different perspective. “It shows that people will believe it anyway, but not everyone agrees,” he said, “but it’s important to understand the extent to which disagreements are made public.” There are things we need to say to curb it.”
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear another Trump case this week that could have huge legal and political implications. The questions include whether the president has immunity from prosecution for the performance of his official duties and whether Trump’s challenge to his loss in the 2020 presidential election falls under the category of official duties.
If the justices side with Trump, two of the four criminal cases against him could be overturned, but prosecutors argue that his criminal conduct is not exempt from immunity. ing.
He denies all wrongdoing.
On “This Week,” when Kahl asked whether the court intended to further deepen the nation’s political divisions, Breyer stood firm on his position. – I’m not shy. [but I’m] “No, there is no easy answer.”
Mr. Kahl suggested that in order to demonstrate bipartisan agreement to the public, the justices are secretly considering strategic rulings as a bloc on some cases, such as Mr. Trump’s voting access and immunity issues. When asked if that was the case, Breyer demurred.
He said there are certainly delicate deliberations going on among the justices, adding, “We may be able to find a compromise in the conference, a solution that actually solves a lot of the problems, and that… It’s possible,” he said. That’s one of the problems. ”
But he insisted that the kind of horse trading Karl referred to did not exist.
”[Former Justice] Sandra O’Connor used to say: The first unspoken rule is that no one speaks twice until everyone has spoken once. Second unspoken rule: Tomorrow is another day. You and I were our greatest allies in case one. In case 2, we are completely at odds,” he said.
Breyer also took issue with a legal theory known as textualism, a growing belief among conservative judges that courts should focus solely on the text of the statute and the Constitution to determine the outcome of cases. chanted.
As Breyer emphasizes in his book, when interpreting a law, judges consider who wrote the law, why the law was written, the values of the Constitution, and the practical aspects of the court’s decision. We believe that other factors also need to be considered, such as how they reflect the impact of
“Who wrote those words? What did they have in mind? What was Congress trying to do? What are the consequences of going one way rather than another? How do we fit into a set of values that start with ?” Breyer said. “Judges have always done things like that.”
That ideology is in direct conflict with the textualist approach highlighted in Roe’s 2022 rejection of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
In the majority decision, Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “We cannot pretend to know how our political system and society will react to today’s decisions to overturn Roe and Casey.” “And even if we could foresee what would happen, we have no authority.” So that that knowledge influences our decisions. ”
Breyer acknowledged that court decisions have a direct impact on society as a whole, but said that factor does not guide judges’ decision-making processes.
“I think it’s in your heart,” he said. “When you say that, does that lead to you deciding to do X instead of not doing it? Well, I can’t say never, but rarely.”
He quoted the late constitutional law professor Paul Freund.
“No judge is or will be influenced by the temperature of the day, but every judge will be aware of the weather of the season.”
