On Point | Podcast
Justice Breyer's ear notch test for our constitution
Apr 24, 2024
Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer challenges the dominance of textualism in judicial decisions, advocating for pragmatism. He discusses the importance of considering consequences, evolving societal values, and the need for a flexible constitution. The conversation explores the limitations of textualism, the role of judges in interpreting the Constitution, and the ongoing experiment of upholding democratic values in a changing society.
47:31
Episode guests
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
- Pragmatism is advocated over textualism for judicial decisions to consider consequences and values.
- Rigid adherence to original intent may not align with modern values and societal changes.
Deep dives
Justice Breyer's Advocacy for Pragmatism Over Textualism
Justice Breyer advocates for pragmatism over textualism in interpreting the Constitution. He believes that relying solely on a narrow text-based approach limits judicial decision-making for a modern democracy. Using the example of snails on a train to illustrate interpretation challenges, he highlights the importance of considering consequences, objectives, and values in legal rulings.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
