Justices Breyer & Scalia on Judicial Interpretation - Essay Example

Justices' Breyer & Scalia on Judicial Interpretation In observing judicial laws and achieving a greater understanding of the constitution, there is no better resource than the members of the United States Supreme Court. To learn about the application of justice, as it is applied to the individual cases that are heard before the federal bench each day. A role in which the justices are expected, under the clearly expressed terms of the court, to give a fair hearing to those that that have come before their collective governing body, all the while maintaining a clear interpretation of the constitution. For this very reason, observing members of the Federal bench, whose duty it is to provide judicial interpretation of legal doctrine, is quite necessary. Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, each being highly respected members of the Supreme Court, have their own distinct views in regards to judicial responsibility and the overall role of the Supreme Court itself. Two justices, while each having the same position of power, bring to the federal bench distinct backgrounds, as well as educations. Such distinctions that shape the ways in which both men look at the greater role of the Court itself. Both of these gentleman, while possessing respective levels of great judicial power, are in their own right distinctive in approach. Leaving to be considered not only the ways in which they view their position in the legal system, but also how they observe the history of the organization since the time of its fruition and its subsequent involvement in the present state of legal affairs and greater discussion occurring in multiple facets of the country. In an interview conducted at The Federalist Society, Justices' Breyer and Scalia are provided with an environment to engage in healthy discussion having to do with their individual interpretations of both laws, as well as the intent behind them. An issue which Justice Scalia addresses is the notion of a "living constitution". One which would grow with society and form itself to the resulting advancement, in such a way that it would be keeping it from breaking and crumbling all together. Breyer says, while avoiding the classification of 'living' in regards to the constitution, the document "adapts to the circumstance in order to keep the values the same," (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). After which, Justice Scalia responds with a concurrence that, while he too would believe that the constitution should adapt to new occurrences, he would still not give it the term "living" as part of its classification. While it is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interfere with democracy, it is it's responsibility to keep in mind the notion of not going too far in its interpretations and approaches. As for his view on democracy, in part, Scalia says that, "The majority rules," Adding that, "If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in democracy," (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). Justice Scalia then details his view that the Bill of Rights acts in such a manner, that it imposes limitations on the notion of majority rule, which are in return placed by those in the court system. "Whenever the judges go beyond the meaning understood by the society that voted for those limitations, whenever it goes beyond that original meaning, it is in effect adding to those subjects that are driven off the democratic stage," (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). Breyer's argument of preserving the democratic process is one which many have agreed upon. As is the case with Presidential elections, like Justice Scalia says, the majority does hold a ruling authority and that is in fact part of the democratic process. To have a court that is comprised of entirely different approaches to things, is quite healthy and good, according to Justice Breyer. "It's just my burden to prove its better than anything else," (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). Scalia places the question forward, for greater discussion and debate, as to whether a lawyer is better qualified to understand the issues at hand, in comparison to that of a historian. For a lawyer, the debate revolves heavily around the legal aspects, as well as the implications to be had, if any at all, of the wording within the laws. In the case of a historian, their purpose is to document that which has occurred. All the while, relaying such information that can enable future generations to not only comprehend what has occurred centuries past, but also have the knowledge necessary to proceed into the future. In his interview with Stuart Taylor, a Senior Columnist for the National Journal, which he gave to promote his book Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution, Justice Breyer discussed the issues in his novel to great detail. As for why he wrote his novel, Justice Breyer responds that, "I also wanted people to understand the importance of democracy in the constitution," (Breyer, 10/17/05). In regards to the constitution, Justice Breyer's responds that, "This document is first and foremost about the creation of democratic institutions that allow people to decide policy matters for themselves and the job of the court is simply to police the outer bounds of a document that creates institutions for a certain kind of democracy," (Breyer, 10/17/05). A government which would have been created not just by the people, but also for the betterment of the same people. He further takes into consideration the notion that every person has the right to take part in government. After providing the examples of both the French Revolution and Hitler's Germany, as well as the idea that even those elected can do terrible things, Breyer says the following, "It was necessary to have more protection that just the protection of democracy. It was necessary to protect basic fundamental liberties, ie. Liberty of the modern, i.e. the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. So you need both," (Breyer, 10/17/05). The rights of the United States, as they are afforded, clearly take relevance in the overall discussion. One having to to with, not just the protection of democratic thinking, but also the protection of those rights clearly enumerated within the constitution, that allow free individuals to have the opportunity to enjoy such freedoms as they are able. Justice Scalia, in an interview given at the ACLU membership conference, discusses the state of civil liberties. Justice Scalia says that, until Congress suspends the rid of habeous corpus practice, a person is entitled to be tried just like any other United States citizen. "I'm there because it's my understanding of what was the original meaning of the constitution. And the first amendment I interpret to be a guarantee of freedom of expression," (Scalia, 10/17/05). Justice Scalia says, while he is not a strict constructionist, he feels that there should be a reasonable interpretation of the constitution. In regards to a case mentioned, involving the issue of burning the American flag, Justice Scalia says that he does feel that the first amendment protects, as well as ensures, a guarantee of freedom to express one's self. "My job is simply to say whether those things that you find desirable are contained within the constitution," Adding that, "I'm in the business of enforcing democracy," (Scalia, 10/17/05). Enforcing the democratic process, which in itself serves as a means of fostering greater national involvement, is something that both men feel to be very crucial. Such a process that provides the citizens of the United States an outlet in which they are able to enjoy the level of freedom to express ideas and ask thoughtful questions. A process that, in some countries throughout the world, is not afforded to others. During the course of the interview, Justice Scalia puts forth the question, one being in regards to whether or not anyone can deal with an evolving constitution. Despite its evolution, the notion is maintained that there are rights and with those being fundamental, they cannot be disregarded. For the document to change over time, the language within the constitution would evolve along side it. From Justice Scalia's standpoint, "Language can be capacious without implying that its meaning changes in the future," Elaborating further that, "When they said due process of law they meant those processes that were the rights of Englishmen in 1791. And the reason they didn't set them forth in detail is it would have taken a casebook this fat. Of course they couldn't list them all, so they said due process of law,"(Scalia, 10/17/05). When the government of the United States was first created, it would have been impossible for the founders to have foreseen the level of growth and evolution, which has come into place over the years. The interpretation of language, as Justice Scalia states during the course of this particular interview, can have a large impact on the understanding of the laws as they were written. Language that, along with the outside evolution occurring, is forced to develop simultaneously along with the progression of growth and change in environment. Development that can have numerous meanings for many different things. Scalia and Breyer, in many ways, are no different from other Justices' whom have come before them, in regards to the fact that each, having very distinct personalities and approaches that are unique to themselves, also find common ground, however large or small, in the appreciation for the great power that comes with trying to interpret the laws of the land, as well as what the founders would have meant when they sought to create the documents in the first place. Each judge seeks to interpret the cases they see, based on the nature of the laws in question and how those same laws apply. Politically speaking, Justice Breyer is often times considered to be more liberal, in comparison with Justice Scalia, who is referred to a not just a conservative, a "strict constructionist". Similarly, both men seek to get out from under the political labels that have been placed upon them and maintain the relevancy of the work, for which they have been asked to do. Both Justices, would provide a powerful argument for the drive they have towards honoring the work which they do and the greater role in history which they envision for not just themselves, but the legal system as it stands. Each taking note of democracy, as it comes to things like the judicial system. In the instance of selecting a justice whom, through the testimony given, provides a stronger case for their views on judicial interpretation, that person would be Justice Antonin Scalia. A man of great conviction whom, while in the pursuit of upholding the framework of the American judicial systems, holds steady to those beliefs and interpretations that have defined their distinguished careers as dutiful litigators in the pursuit of justice. A key note, that enables such a level of appreciation of his case to be made, would be from the interview which he gave to the ACLU Membership Conference in 2006. Justice Scalia asserts that, no matter what the circumstance may be, you cannot force someone to believe something that they may not have believed to begin with. In this case, enforcing the belief in the sanctity of the American flag and the need to preserve it. For Justice Scalia, his statement in regards to the case of the American flag bodes well for understanding his interpretation of judicial rule. Taking into consideration that, within the realm in which it was produced, judicial law is meant to be interpreted through means of logical understanding of the text, instead of utilizing personal motivation as it comes to the final ruling given in the case. Maintaining a level of integrity as it comes to the judicial prosecution of cases. So that with each ruling, the defendant(s) are afforded an outcome that would have been rendered without personalized prejudice(s) on the part of the either the representation which they would have hired, or most notably the justices who seek to find a conclusion. Works Cited Breyer, Stephen & Scalia, Antonin Justices. "A Conversation on the Constitution: Perspectives from Active Liberty and A Matter of Interpretation with Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia." Moderator: Jan Crawford Greenburg, ABC News Legal Correspondent. URL: http://fora.tv/2006/12/05/ Justices_Stephen_Breyer_and_Antonin_Scalia. Breyer, Stephen Justice. "Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution." Event date: 10/17/05. URL: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php main_page=product_video_info&products_id=189390-1&highlight=active%liberty Scalia, Antonin Justice. "The State of Civil Liberties." Event Date: 10/15/06. URL: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php main_page=product_video_info&products_id=194843-1&highlight=the%20state%20of %20civil%20liberties Read More