Open to Debate Think Twice: Reading the Constitution with Justice Stephen Breyer
Justice Breyer's Case for Pragmatism Over Textualism in Constitutional Law
Justice Stephen Breyer makes a compelling case for interpreting the Constitution using pragmatism rather than strict textualism or originalism. He argues that a rigid focus on the original meaning of words as understood centuries ago fails to accommodate modern realities, such as the internet, which George Washington could never have anticipated. Breyer highlights the shortcomings of textualism by giving examples like the 2006 case involving the reimbursement of educational consultants, where a narrow text-focused interpretation missed the statute's broader intent.
He explains that judges should consider the purpose of the law, its practical consequences, and the broader values it aims to protect. Breyer also shares insights into how the Court debates complex cases, emphasizing listening, collegiality, and the challenge of balancing legal text with evolving societal needs. He believes his pragmatic approach is more suited to effectively guiding constitutional interpretation in a diverse and changing society.
Textualism vs Pragmatism
- Justice Breyer explains textualism focuses solely on the words without considering broader purposes or consequences.
- He contrasts this with his pragmatism, which looks at purpose and impact, suggesting textualism is too narrow.
Case on "Costs" Interpretation
- Breyer discusses a 2006 case where the Court narrowly interpreted "costs" to exclude educational consultants.
- He argues that relying strictly on textualism in this case ignored legislative purpose and practical consequences.