Justice Breyer stated in a recent speech at the University of Chicago, as reported in this article,
that when reviewing a legal issue, he tends to emphasize the purposes
of a law, and the consequences of letting a law stand or finding it
illegal.
The consequences? So if he doesn’t like a law
because it would lead to a result (i.e. consequence) that he doesn”t
like, he often will strike down a law (and vice-versa). This is
not an overstatement. According to the article, Justice Breyer
explained how this “consequences analysis” has worked in practice:
“He
decided a display of the commandments in front of two Kentucky
courthouses was unconstitutional because he concluded their display
would cause religious conflict. But he found that removing a similar
display that had been in front of the Texas State Capital for years
would not, so he ruled it constitutional.”
The ends
justifying the means analysis is terrifying enough. It is another
thing altogether that he admits to this like he was discussing the
weather.
Justice Breyer needs to get the memo:
To: Justice Breyer
From: Anyone that has heard of “The law”
RE: 5th Grade Curriculum on American Government
In
the United States, which is the country we live in, there are what we
call laws. Congress passes the laws (members of Congress are
called legislators). It is the job of judges to intrepret these
laws (judges often wear neat-looking black robes).
