An analysis by recently retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer that deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court's supermajority and makes the case for a better way to interpret the Constitution.
Given that Breyer is no longer a sitting judge, one might have thought that this new book would afford him the opportunity to let loose ... But his voice in the book barely rises above a whisper. Written in Breyer’s careful, tentative style, Reading the Constitution is well meaning, tedious and exasperating; it is also rather telling, showing how a thoughtful, conscientious jurist can get so wedded to propriety and high-mindedness that he comes across as earnestly naïve.
The more Mr. Breyer describes "interpretation" along such lines—illustrated with detailed accounts of various cases from his time on the court—the harder it is to understand what he means by "interpretation" ... Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Reading the Constitution is its attempt to anchor Mr. Breyer’s jurisprudence in the American founding.
His book is accessible, rather repetitive, and neither theoretical nor technical. It is addressed to non-lawyers. It also seems weirdly naïve. Or maybe purposefully naïve ... Why would Breyer want to ignore, or seriously understate, the part that political ideology plays in Supreme Court decisions?
