Russert Moderates Panel with Scalia, Breyer and O'Connor
At a conversation hosted by the National Constitution Center, The National Archives and the Aspen Insitute, Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor gave their thoughts on several topics, including the relevance of foreign law and the increasing politicization of today's courts.
Justice Breyer's statements on the use of foreign law makes me wonder how he ever made it to the Supreme Court. I didn't write down his words verbatim, but Breyer essentially said that a good example of why we should listen to foreign law lies in South Africa. The people in South Africa, after struggling to form a new government and court system, are good, honest and rational people - "just like us" - so we should listen to what they have to say. It was one of the weakest legal arguments I have ever heard. Our founding fathers are probably turning over in their graves. (Remember why we separated from England in the first place Justice Breyer?)
On the increasing politicization of the confirmation process, Scalia said that when he was confirmed in 1986, he passed the Senate unanimously, despite the fact that his "originalist" views were well known. But as judges increasingly decide for themselves how the Constitution "evolves" to today's standards rather than simply interpreting what the document says, the law can mean whatever the judges want it to mean. Thus, politicians are encouraged to find judges who agree with their own views rather than find judges who can interpret the law.
It's definitely worth listening to, although because it's an hour long, there are some quality problems listening online. You can find it here at www.Cspan.org by searching the audio archives.
Justice Breyer's statements on the use of foreign law makes me wonder how he ever made it to the Supreme Court. I didn't write down his words verbatim, but Breyer essentially said that a good example of why we should listen to foreign law lies in South Africa. The people in South Africa, after struggling to form a new government and court system, are good, honest and rational people - "just like us" - so we should listen to what they have to say. It was one of the weakest legal arguments I have ever heard. Our founding fathers are probably turning over in their graves. (Remember why we separated from England in the first place Justice Breyer?)
On the increasing politicization of the confirmation process, Scalia said that when he was confirmed in 1986, he passed the Senate unanimously, despite the fact that his "originalist" views were well known. But as judges increasingly decide for themselves how the Constitution "evolves" to today's standards rather than simply interpreting what the document says, the law can mean whatever the judges want it to mean. Thus, politicians are encouraged to find judges who agree with their own views rather than find judges who can interpret the law.
It's definitely worth listening to, although because it's an hour long, there are some quality problems listening online. You can find it here at www.Cspan.org by searching the audio archives.
posted by Richie Rich | 2:45 PM
<< HOME