Supreme Court Justice undermines the Court with one awful betrayal

Justice Stephen Breyer

The founders of this great nation wanted the Supreme Court to be independent. Unfortunately, partisan politics has infected the institution.

And now this Supreme Court Justice undermined the Court with one awful betrayal.

Gone are the days of the unbiased Judiciary. Now it’s all about politics.

And one Supreme Court Justice is proving that beyond any doubt.

According to his new book, retired Justice Stephen Breyer feels the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade two years ago was a “deeply regressive feature” of the Republican-appointed majority’s approach to the law.

Breyer, 85, was a former President Bill Clinton appointee who retired in 2022, just days after the pivotal Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which held that states can enact their own abortion-restricting or limiting laws, a 6-3 ruling led by the Republican-appointed majority.

The justice’s latest book, Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, lays out his case against the “originalism” jurisprudence frequently used by Republican-appointed justices to read the Constitution.

“In Dobbs, the majority’s reasoning boiled down to one basic proposition: Because the people who ratified the original Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment did not understand the document to protect reproductive rights, the document could not be read, now, as protecting those rights,” Breyer wrote, noting that the landmark abortion case “highlights a deeply regressive feature of the originalist approach.”

Some Supreme Court justices, led by the late Justice Antonin Scalia and other Republican-appointed legal luminaries such as Edwin Meese and Robert Bork, see textualism and originalism as approaches for reading statutes and the Constitution.

Textualism often demands a rigorous interpretation of the Constitution’s words, whereas originalism requires historical accuracy.

During his 28-year tenure on the bench, Breyer was known as the high court’s pragmatic justice. His jurisprudence takes into account the practical repercussions of decisions, frequently focusing on the real-life effects on those who are affected by the court’s ruling.

The departed justice stated that his dissent from the Dobbs majority, which included Democratic-appointed Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, “pointed out that ‘people’ did not ratify the original Constitution in 1788 or the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.”

“White men did,” Breyer said. He went on to say that “women were not understood as full members of the political community at either of these points in history.”

The irony of former Justice Breyer implying that white men aren’t people when he is a white man is laughable.

He’s just pandering to the identity politics of the day so he can sell his book to liberals who will eat it up.

In reality, people did ratify the Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment, it’s just people he doesn’t like.

Every American could use the same logic to describe any law passed by the elites in Washington, D.C. – “people didn’t pass these laws, politicians did.”

Do you think that would fly if it was put into the memoirs of a major conservative?

Of course not. It’s always a double standard.

And we all know who always gets the short end of the stick.

Stay tuned to The Federalist Wire.