JUSTICE STEVEN GERALD BREYER AND COURT LEGITIMACY

 

JUSTICE STEVEN GERALD BREYER 

Steven Breyer, in his early upbringing in Lowell High School, San Fransisco, California, USA, was noted in active debate clubs. He was raised from a middle-class family, graduating from the High School in the year (1955), got admitted to Stanford University to read philosophy, and graduated in the year (1959), and went ahead to receive both Rhodes Scholarship and Marshall Scholarship in admission to Magdalen College, Oxford University, to read Economics, Politics and Philosophy, thou, graduated in the year (1961), and returned to Harvard University to pursue Law degree, and finally, graduated in the year (1964).

Until, his sworn-in into the Supreme Court of the United States, as an Associate Justice from 1994 to 2022, which is the core-subject of deliberation, his known uphold principle was, the ‘Court Legitimacy’ as his sustained purpose, hence, quote him from the Harvard University Magazine established in the year (1898);

“ The job, and that of other members of the Supreme Court, is to speak for the law, it does not mean, ‘Justice’ is a ‘Platonic Guardian’, as an ironclad power to impose on the nation, as a will of jurists, despite being unelected, rather, to be deference to the elected branches of government, for caution and doubt.”

Justice Breyer, was observed as a pragmatist, influenced by the real-world consequence, in deciding for his case, on the basis of the constitution. He had vehemently argued, ‘Justices’ are not ‘Junior-varsity politicians’, as second in guesses of Congress men, nor the President. Rather, should uphold a Supreme Court that maintain, a workable Constitutional system of government, and take greater account, in the constitution democratic nature, in terms of interpretation and statutory texts meaning. Which requires judicial modesty, and exercise of judicial authority, to produce a better law, that helps community of individuals, who are democratically finding practical solutions, to contemporary problems.

Steven Breyer philosophy of Constitutional Interpretation, were ascribe into five basic element, as follows;

I. The Language and structure of the text, as the historic meaning accorded to, by the law markers.

II. The Tradition, as in, the general application of the chosen words in law.

III. The Judicial Precedents.

IV. The ‘Words’ purpose, the values it embodies, in society.

V. The ‘Words’ consequence or impacts, in society.

On that basis, the following are few captured, and notable dissent of Justice Breyer, at the Supreme Court of the United States, on cited landmark cases;

i. Oregon Vs. Guzek (2006)

      “ A [S]tate may limit the innocence-related evidence, which a capital defendant, can introduce at a sentencing proceeding, to the evidence introduced, at the original trial.”

ii. Hertz Corp. Vs. Friend (2010)

      “ For the purpose of Federal diversity jurisdiction, a corporations principal place of business, refer to the place, where its high-level officers direct, and coordinate the corporation’s activities, as the nerve center.”

iii. ABC Vs. Aereo, Inc.(2014)

      “ A streaming service, infringed the public performance right, by selling, to its subscribers, a technologically complex service, that allow them to watch television programs, over the internet, at about the same time, the program broadcast over the air.”

iv. NLRB Vs. Canning (2014)

      “The Recess appointments clause, empowers, the President to fill any existing vacancy during any Senate recess, of sufficient length. The Senate, is in session when it says that it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.”

v. Hefferman Vs. City of Paterson (2016)

       “ When an employer demotes an employee, out of a desire to prevent the employee, from engaging in protected political activity, the employee is entitled, to challenge that unlawful action, under the First Amendment and section 1983, even, if, the employers actions, are based on a factual mistakes about the employees behaviour.”

In conclusion, Jurists are placed in a ‘cross road’, to acknowledge that, any infirmity of the Court, attack the Court Legitimacy, and decline public acceptance of the Court decisions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Photo of Justice S.G. Breyer © Historical Collections of the Supreme Court of the United States.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, DBA.,PhD.,SJD.

Professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, fellow, University of Sierra Leone.

Fulbright Research Fellow, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, USA.