I regret to inform you that Stephen Breyer is at again. Two years after a thunderous cyberbullying campaign ended with his resignation from the Supreme Court, the 85-year-old former justice has released yet another book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, to explain his approach to serving as a justice and judge and interpreting the law.
This is not the first time Breyer has opined on the topic. Nearly twenty years ago he published Active Liberty, which provided an initial exploration of his constitutional philosophy. More recently and notoriously, Breyer released The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics while he was still a sitting justice. That book—really a pamphlet—received scathing criticism for its unsophisticated arguments claiming that the Supreme Court does not function as a political institution. Luckily, Breyer announced his resignation shortly thereafter, ensuring that unlike certain other recent justices, he would exercise some control over who followed in his seat.
Why, then, go back to the well? As Breyer put it to The New York Times’s Adam Liptak: “Something important is going on.” Belatedly, tentatively, and long after the horses have left the barn, Breyer warns Liptak’s readers that the Court has taken a proverbial wrong turn. Sir, I regret to inform you that this melodrama started about fifty years ago, and you’ve arrived in time to only catch the tragic ending.
Read the full review at
https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/stephen-breyer-book-review-doesnt-understand-the-problem/
