Jump to content

Stephen Breyer: Difference between revisions

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 76: Line 76:
In an interview on [[Fox News Sunday]] on December 12, 2010, Breyer stated that based on the values and the historical record, the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founding Fathers]] never intended guns to go unregulated and that history supports his and the other dissenters' views in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]''.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#content |title=Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns |publisher=FoxNews.com |date=December 12, 2010 |accessdate=April 2, 2011}}</ref>
In an interview on [[Fox News Sunday]] on December 12, 2010, Breyer stated that based on the values and the historical record, the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founding Fathers]] never intended guns to go unregulated and that history supports his and the other dissenters' views in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]''.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#content |title=Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns |publisher=FoxNews.com |date=December 12, 2010 |accessdate=April 2, 2011}}</ref>


In the wake of the controversy<ref>Nagraj, Neil (2010-01-28) [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_justice_alito_mouths_not_true_when_obama_blasts_supreme_court_ruling_in_state_of.html Justice Alito mouths "not true" when Obama blasts Supreme Court ruling in State of the Union address], ''[[New York Daily News]]''</ref> over Justice [[Samuel Alito|Alito]]'s [[2010 State of the Union Address#Justice Alito's response|reaction]] to President [[Barack Obama|Obama]]'s [[Citizens United v. FEC#Politicians and political parties|criticism]] of the Court's ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]'' ruling in his [[2010 State of the Union Address|2010]] [[State of the Union Address]], Breyer said he would continue to attend the address:<blockquote>I think it's very, very, very important - very important - for us to show up at that State of the Union, because people today are more and more visual. What (people) see in front of them at the State of the Union is that federal government. And I would like them to see the judges too, because federal judges are also a part of that government.<ref>Blake, Aaron (2010-12-12) [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/12/breyer-ill-go-to-state-of-the.html Justice Breyer: I'll go to State of the Union], ''[[Washington Post]]''</ref></blockquote>
In the wake of the controversy<ref>Nagraj, Neil (2010-01-28) [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_justice_alito_mouths_not_true_when_obama_blasts_supreme_court_ruling_in_state_of.html Justice Alito mouths "not true" when Obama blasts Supreme Court ruling in State of the Union address], ''[[New York Daily News]]''</ref> over President [[Barack Obama|Obama]]'s [[Citizens United v. FEC#Politicians and political parties|criticism]] of the Court's ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]'' ruling in his [[2010 State of the Union Address|2010]] [[State of the Union Address]], Breyer said he would continue to attend the address:<blockquote>I think it's very, very, very important - very important - for us to show up at that State of the Union, because people today are more and more visual. What (people) see in front of them at the State of the Union is that federal government. And I would like them to see the judges too, because federal judges are also a part of that government.<ref>Blake, Aaron (2010-12-12) [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/12/breyer-ill-go-to-state-of-the.html Justice Breyer: I'll go to State of the Union], ''[[Washington Post]]''</ref></blockquote>


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 03:46, 15 April 2011

Stephen Breyer
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
Assumed office
August 3, 1994
Nominated byBill Clinton
Preceded byHarry Blackmun
Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
In office
1990 – August 3, 1994
Preceded byLevin Hicks Campbell
Succeeded byJuan Torruella
Judge of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
In office
December 10, 1980 – August 3, 1994
Nominated byJimmy Carter
Preceded byPosition established
Succeeded bySandra Lynch
Personal details
Born (1938-08-15) August 15, 1938 (age 85)
San Francisco, United States
SpouseJoanna Freda Hare
Alma materStanford University
Magdalen College, Oxford
Harvard Law School

Stephen Gerald Breyer (Template:Pron-en; born August 15, 1938) is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court.[1]

Following a clerkship with Supreme Court Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg in 1964, Breyer became well-known as a law professor and lecturer at Harvard Law School starting in 1967. There he specialized in the area of administrative law, writing a number of influential text books that remain in use today. He held other prominent positions before being nominated for the Supreme Court, including special assistant to the United States Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, and assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973.

In his 2005 book Active Liberty, Breyer made his first attempt to systematically lay out his views on legal theory, arguing that the judiciary should seek to resolve issues to encourage popular participation in governmental decisions.

Early life and education

Breyer was born to Irving Gerald Breyer and Anne A. Roberts,[2] a middle-class Jewish family in San Francisco, California. Breyer's father was legal counsel for the San Francisco Board of Education.[3] Both Breyer and his younger brother, Charles, who is a federal district judge, are Eagle Scouts of San Francisco's Troop 14.[4][5] In 2007, Breyer was honored with the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award by the Boy Scouts of America.[6] In 1955, Breyer graduated from Lowell High School. At Lowell, he was a member of the Lowell Forensic Society and debated regularly in high school debate tournaments, including against future California governor Jerry Brown and future Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe.[7]

Breyer received a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy from Stanford University, a Bachelor of Arts from Magdalen College at Oxford University as a Marshall Scholar, and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from Harvard Law School. Breyer is also fluent in French.[8]

In 1967, he married The Hon. Joanna Freda Hare, a psychologist and member of the British aristocracy (the youngest daughter of John Hare, 1st Viscount Blakenham). The Breyers have three adult children, Chloe (an Episcopal priest, and author of The Close), Nell, and Michael.[9]

Breyer served as a law clerk to Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg during the 1964 term (list). He was a special assistant to the United States Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust from 1965 to 1967 and an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973. Breyer was a special counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary from 1974 to 1975 and served as chief counsel of the committee from 1979 to 1980.[9] He worked closely with the chairman of the committee, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, to pass the Airline Deregulation Act that closed the Civil Aeronautics Board.[7][10]

Breyer became an assistant professor, law professor, and lecturer at Harvard Law School starting in 1967. Breyer taught at Harvard Law School until 1994, also serving as a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government from 1977 to 1980. At Harvard, Breyer was known as a leading expert on administrative law.[11] While there, he wrote two highly influential books on deregulation: Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation and Regulation and Its Reform. In 1970, Breyer wrote "The Uneasy Case for Copyright", one of the most widely cited skeptical examinations of copyright. Breyer was a visiting professor at the College of Law in Sydney, Australia, the University of Rome,[9] and the Tulane University Law School.[12]

Judicial career

File:StephenBreyer.jpg
Stephen Breyer

From 1980 to 1994, Breyer was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; he was the court's Chief Judge from 1990 to 1994.[9] In the last days of President Jimmy Carter's administration, on November 13, 1980, Carter nominated Breyer to the First Circuit, and the U.S. Senate confirmed him on December 9, 1980 by an 80-10 vote.[13] He served as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States between 1990 and 1994 and the United States Sentencing Commission between 1985 and 1989.[9] On the sentencing commission, Breyer played a key role in reforming federal criminal sentencing procedures, producing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which were formulated to increase uniformity in sentencing.[14]

In 1993, President Bill Clinton considered him for the seat vacated by Byron White that ultimately went to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[15] Breyer's appointment came shortly thereafter, however, following the retirement of Harry Blackmun in 1994, when Clinton nominated Breyer as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 13 of that year. Breyer was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in an 87 to 9 vote and took his seat August 3, 1994.[9] Breyer was the second-longest-serving junior justice in the history of the Court, close to surpassing the record set by Justice Joseph Story of 4,228 days (from February 3, 1812 to September 1, 1823); Breyer fell 29 days short of tying this record, which he would have reached on March 1, 2006, had Justice Samuel Alito not joined the Court on January 31, 2006. Although Chief Justice Roberts joined the Court in September 2005, the duties of the junior justice never fall upon the Chief Justice, who is considered primus inter pares—first among equals.

Judicial philosophy

In general

Breyer's pragmatic approach to the law "will tend to make the law more sensible"; according to Cass Sunstein, Breyer's "attack on originalism is powerful and convincing."[16] In 2006, Breyer said that in assessing a law's constitutionality, while some of his colleagues "emphasize language, a more literal reading of the [Constitution's] text, history and tradition," he looks more closely to the "purpose and consequences."[17]

Breyer has consistently voted in favor of abortion rights,[18][19] one of the most controversial areas of the Supreme Court's docket. He has also defended the Supreme Court's use of foreign law and international law as persuasive (but not binding) authority in its decisions.[20][21][22] However, Breyer is also recognized to be deferential to the interests of law enforcement and to legislative judgments in the Supreme Court's First Amendment rulings. Breyer has also demonstrated a consistent pattern of deference to Congress, voting to overturn congressional legislation at a lower rate than any other Supreme Court justice since 1994.[23]

Breyer's extensive experience in administrative law is accompanied by his staunch defense of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Breyer rejects the strict interpretation of the Sixth Amendment espoused by Justice Scalia that all facts necessary to criminal punishment must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[24] In many other areas on the Court, too, Breyer's pragmatism is considered the intellectual counterweight to Scalia's textualist philosophy.[25]

In describing his interpretive philosophy, Breyer has sometimes noted his use of six interpretive tools: text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences of competing interpretations.[26] Breyer notes that only the last two differentiate him from textualists on the Supreme Court such as Scalia. Breyer argues that these sources are necessary, however, and in the former case (purpose), can in fact provide greater objectivity in legal interpretation than looking merely at what is often ambiguous statutory text.[27] With the latter (consequences), Breyer argues that considering the impact of legal interpretations is a further way of ensuring consistency with a law's intended purpose.[28]

Active Liberty

Breyer expounded on his judicial philosophy in 2005 in Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. In it, Breyer urges judges to interpret legal provisions (of the Constitution or of statutes) in light of the purpose of the text and how well the consequences of specific rulings will fit those purposes. The book is considered a response to the 1997 book A Matter of Interpretation, in which Antonin Scalia emphasized adherence to the original meaning of the text alone.[18][29]

In Active Liberty, Breyer argues that the Framers of the Constitution sought to establish a democratic government involving the maximum liberty for its citizens. Breyer refers to Isaiah Berlin’s Two Concepts of Liberty. The first Berlinian concept, being what most people understand by liberty, is "freedom from government coercion;" Berlin termed this negative liberty and warned against its diminution. Breyer terms this "modern liberty." The second Berlinian concept — to Berlin, "positive liberty" — is the "freedom to participate in the government;" In Breyer's terminology, this is the "active liberty," which the judge should champion. Having established this premise of what liberty is, and having posited the primary importance of this concept over the competing idea of "Negative Liberty" to the Framers, Breyer argues a predominantly utilitarian case for judges making rulings that give effect to the democratic intentions of the Constitution.

Both of the books' historical premises and practical prescriptions have been challenged. For example, according to Prof. Peter Berkowitz,[30] the reason that "[t]he primarily democratic nature of the Constitution's governmental structure has not always seemed obvious," as Breyer puts it, is "because it’s not true, at least in Breyer's sense that the Constitution elevates active liberty above modern [negative] liberty." Breyer's position "demonstrates not fidelity to the Constitution," Berkowitz argues, "but rather a determination to rewrite the Constitution’s priorities." Berkowitz suggests that Breyer is also inconsistent, in failing to apply this standard to the issue of abortion, instead preferring decisions "that protect women’s modern liberty, which remove controversial issues from democratic discourse." Failing to answer the textualist charge that the Living Documentarian Judge is a law unto himself, Berkowitz argues that Active Liberty "suggests that when necessary, instead of choosing the consequence that serves what he regards as the Constitution’s leading purpose, Breyer will determine the Constitution’s leading purpose on the basis of the consequence that he prefers to vindicate."

Against the last charge, Professor Cass Sunstein has defended Breyer, noting that of the nine justices on the late Rehnquist Court, Breyer showed the highest percentage of votes to uphold acts of Congress and also to defer to the decision of the executive branch.[31] However, according to Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker, "Breyer concedes that a judicial approach based on 'active liberty' will not yield solutions to every constitutional debate," and that, in Breyer's words, "Respecting the democratic process does not mean you abdicate your role of enforcing the limits in the Constitution, whether in the Bill of Rights or in separation of powers."[32]

To his point, and from a discussion at the New-York Historical Society in March 2006, Breyer has noted that "democratic means" did not bring about an end to slavery, or the concept of "one man, one vote," which allowed corrupt and discriminatory (but democratically inspired) state laws to be overturned in favor of civil rights.[33]

In 2010, Breyer released a second book, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View (ISBN 978-0307269911).[34]

Other views

In an interview on Fox News Sunday on December 12, 2010, Breyer stated that based on the values and the historical record, the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated and that history supports his and the other dissenters' views in District of Columbia v. Heller.[35]

In the wake of the controversy[36] over President Obama's criticism of the Court's Citizens United v. FEC ruling in his 2010 State of the Union Address, Breyer said he would continue to attend the address:

I think it's very, very, very important - very important - for us to show up at that State of the Union, because people today are more and more visual. What (people) see in front of them at the State of the Union is that federal government. And I would like them to see the judges too, because federal judges are also a part of that government.[37]

See also

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end

Footnotes

  1. ^ Kersch, Ken (2006). "Justice Breyer's Mandarin Liberty". University of Chicago Law Review. 73: 759 [p. 765]. As his decision to characterize both the New Deal and Warren Courts as centrally committed to democracy and "active liberty" makes clear, Justice Breyer identifies his own constitutional agenda with that of these earlier courts, and positions himself, in significant respects, as a partisan of midcentury constitutional liberalism. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Genealogy records, Ancestry.com. Accessed 10/26/2007
  3. ^ Oyez Bio, Retrieved 3/21/07
  4. ^ Townley, Alvin (2007) [2006-12-26]. Legacy of Honor: The Values and Influence of America's Eagle Scouts. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 56–59. ISBN 0-312-36653-1. Retrieved 2006-12-29. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ Ray, Mark (2007). "What It Means to Be an Eagle Scout". Scouting Magazine. Boy Scouts of America. Retrieved 2007-01-05.
  6. ^ "Distinguished Eagle Scout Award". Scouting Magazine (November - December 2007): 10. 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
  7. ^ a b Oyez Bio, retrieved 3/21/07 (For Brown; need cite for Tribe)
  8. ^ "Inaugural D.C. French Festival launches sans the Freedom Fries". Washington Life Magazine. October 12, 2006. Retrieved August 30, 2010.
  9. ^ a b c d e f The Justices of the Supreme Court, retrieved on 3/20/2007
  10. ^ Thierer, Adam (2010-12-21) Who'll Really Benefit from Net Neutrality Regulation?, CBS News
  11. ^ The dilemmas of risk regulation -- Breaking the Vicious Circle by Stephen Breyer, by Sheila Jasanoff. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 1994.
  12. ^ http://www.law.tulane.edu/abroad/index.aspx?ekmensel=c580fa7b_168_0_4386_1
  13. ^ "Sharp Questions for Judge Breyer". New York Times. 2004-07-10. Retrieved 2008-03-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ "Justice Breyer Should Recuse Himself from Ruling on Constitutionality of Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Duke Law Professor Says". Duke University News. 2004-09-28. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  15. ^ Berke, Richard (1993-06-15). "The Overview; Clinton Names Ruth Ginsburg, Advocate for Women, to Court". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  16. ^ Yale Law Journal, dated 2006-04-30, retrieved 2010-09-16
  17. ^ "Justice Breyer Favors 'Less Literal' Readings". newsmax.com. 2006-02-09. Retrieved 2010-09-16.
  18. ^ a b Wittes, Benjamin (2005-09-25). "Memo to John Roberts: Stephen Breyer, a cautious, liberal Supreme Court justice, explains his view of the law". Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  19. ^ Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
  20. ^ Transcript of Discussion Between Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer. AU Washington College of Law, Jan. 13. Retrieved on 3/21/07
  21. ^ Pearlstein, Deborah (2005-04-05). "Who's Afraid of International Law". American Prospect Online. Retrieved 2007-03-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  22. ^ Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
  23. ^ Gewirtz, Paul (2005-07-06). "So Who Are the Activists?". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-23. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  24. ^ Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
  25. ^ Sullivan, Kathleen M. (2006-02-05). "Consent of the Governed". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  26. ^ Lithwick, Dalia (2006-12-06). "Justice Grover Versus Justice Oscar". Slate. Retrieved 2007-03-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  27. ^ "Interview with Nina Totenberg". NPR. 2005-09-30. Retrieved 2007-03-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  28. ^ Sunstein at 12 ("Breyer thinks that as compared with a single-minded focus on literal text, his approach will tend to make the law more sensible, almost by definition. He also contends that it 'helps to implement the public's will and is therefore consistent with the Constitution's democratic purpose.' Breyer concludes that an emphasis on legislative purpose 'means that laws will work better for the people they are presently meant to affect. Law is tied to life; and a failure to understand how a statute is so tied can undermine the very human activity that the law seeks to benefit' (p. 100).")
  29. ^ Feeney, Mark (2005-10-03). "Author in the Court: Justice Stephen Breyer's New Book Reflects His Practical Approach to the Law". Boston Globe. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  30. ^ Berkowitz, Peter. "Democratizing the Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-10-26. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  31. ^ Sunstein, pg. 7, citing Lori Ringhand, "Judicial Activism and the Rehnquist Court", available on ssrn.com and Cass R. Sunstein and Thomas Miles, "Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An Empirical investigation of Chevron", U Chi L Rev (forthcoming 2006).
  32. ^ Toobin, Jeffrey (2005-10-31). "Breyer's Big Idea". The New Yorker. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  33. ^ Pakaluk, Maximilian (13 March 2006). "Chambered in a "Democratic Space". Justice Breyer explains his Constitution". National Review. Retrieved 2007-10-31.
  34. ^ Fontana, David (2005-10-03). "Stephen Breyer's "Making Democracy Work," reviewed by David Fontana". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-10-08.
  35. ^ "Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns". FoxNews.com. December 12, 2010. Retrieved April 2, 2011.
  36. ^ Nagraj, Neil (2010-01-28) Justice Alito mouths "not true" when Obama blasts Supreme Court ruling in State of the Union address, New York Daily News
  37. ^ Blake, Aaron (2010-12-12) Justice Breyer: I'll go to State of the Union, Washington Post

References

Legal offices
New office Judge of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1980–1994 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1990–1994 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
1994–present 		Incumbent
U.S. order of precedence (ceremonial)
Preceded byas Associate Justice of the Supreme Court United States order of precedence
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court 		Succeeded byas Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Template:Start U.S. Supreme Court composition Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition court lifespan Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005 Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition CJ Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition court lifespan Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2005-2006 Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2006–2009 Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2009-2010 Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2010-present Template:End U.S. Supreme Court composition

Template:Persondata

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Breyer&oldid=424143258"