Justice Stephen Breyer reflects on his experiences on the Supreme Court and discusses his latest book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism Not Textualism. He reveals his nomination day and strategic opinions. Breyer critiques textualism and originalism, emphasizing the detrimental nature of unearned respect for flawed arguments. He suggests that the conservative legal movement seeks credibility without accepting rigorous debate. Efforts to elevate discourse may overlook the victory conditions that prioritize reputational standing over substantive critique of judicial philosophies.
Justice Breyer's interview offers insights into his nomination and judicial strategies, emphasizing his perspective on pragmatism versus textualism in his latest book.
Judicial philosophy discussions reveal the challenges presented by textualism and originalism, where respect for opposing views becomes a barrier to genuine discourse.
Breyer acknowledges that conservative legal movements prioritize the presentation of their ideas as reasonable, oftentimes disregarding intellectual scrutiny in favor of public perception.
The Open to Debate team's recordings reflect ongoing legal discussions, including contrasting interpretations of the Constitution and their implications for judicial philosophy and practice.
Collection
[
|
...
]