Stephen Gerald Breyer (pronounced /ˈbraɪər/; born August 15, 1938) is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court.[1]
Following a clerkship with Supreme Court Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg in 1964, Breyer became well-known as a law professor and lecturer at Harvard Law School starting in 1967. There he specialized in the area of administrative law, writing a number of influential text books that remain in use today. He held other prominent positions before being nominated for the Supreme Court, including special assistant to the United States Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, and assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973.
In his 2005 book Active Liberty, Breyer made his first attempt to systematically lay out his views on legal theory, arguing that the judiciary should seek to resolve issues to encourage popular participation in governmental decisions.
The Supreme Court is one of the most extraordinary institutions in our system of government. Charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution, the nine unelected justices of the Court have the awesome power to strike down laws enacted by our elected representatives. Why does the public accept the Court’s decisions as legitimate and follow them, even when those decisions are highly unpopular? What must the Court do to maintain the public’s faith? How can the Court help make our democracy work? These are the questions that Justice Stephen Breyer tackles in this groundbreaking book.
Today we assume that when the Court rules, the public will obey. But Breyer declares that we cannot take the public’s confidence in the Court for granted. He reminds us that at various moments in our history, the Court’s decisions were disobeyed or ignored. And through investigations of past cases, concerning the Cherokee Indians, slavery, and Brown v. Board of Education, he brilliantly captures the steps—and the missteps—the Court took on the road to establishing its legitimacy as the guardian of the Constitution.
Justice Breyer discusses what the Court must do going forward to maintain that public confidence and argues for interpreting the Constitution in a way that works in practice. He forcefully rejects competing approaches that look exclusively to the Constitution’s text or to the eighteenth-century views of the framers. Instead, he advocates a pragmatic approach that applies unchanging constitutional values to ever-changing circumstances—an approach that will best demonstrate to the public that the Constitution continues to serve us well. The Court, he believes, must also respect the roles that other actors—such as the president, Congress, administrative agencies, and the states—play in our democracy, and he emphasizes the Court’s obligation to build cooperative relationships with them.
Finally, Justice Breyer examines the Court’s recent decisions concerning the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, contrasting these decisions with rulings concerning the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. He uses these cases to show how the Court can promote workable government by respecting the roles of other constitutional actors without compromising constitutional principles.
Making Our Democracy Work is a tour de force of history and philosophy, offering an original approach to interpreting the Constitution that judges, lawyers, and scholars will look to for many years to come. And it further establishes Justice Breyer as one of the Court’s greatest intellectuals and a leading legal voice of our time.
《法官能为民主做什么》的编辑校对错误 《法官能为民主做什么》2012年1版1刷中,有不少小的错误,顺手摘出于此。 页34行7,“又能向求谁助”应为“又能向谁求助”。 页39行4,“强者措施”似应为“强制措施”。 页48行21,“诉求请求”似应为“诉讼请求”。 页77行3,“...
评分中国特色vs美国特色 开会还可以这样, 总统发言,法官可以不参加,在中国是不敢想象的。我单位开会都不能缺席,几乎不能请假。很多会都是劳民。
评分在《法官能为民主做什么》一书开头不久,作者斯蒂芬·布雷耶大法官提到他所经历的一个细节:一位非洲大法官困惑而羡慕地问他,“为什么法院说什么,美国人都会照办?”这个貌似天真的问题问得实在深刻,问出了很多国家——尤其是法治不健全的第三世界国家——民众的...
评分Making Our Democracy Work:A Judge's View是美国联邦最高法院大法官斯蒂芬•布雷耶的最新力作,正式译名为《法官能为民主做什么》,这个译名虽然不如《让民主运转:一个法官的立场》更贴近原文题名,但是却高度概括了本书的主旨:法官如何能帮助宪政民主运转起来,尤其是带动...
评分多数人民主的专制召唤者 -----------《法官能为民主做什么》读书笔记 这本原名为《Making Our Democracy Work---A Judge’s View》在译作中文的时候发生了某些偏差,来自美国最高法院的大法官布雷耶写下这本书的时候...
布雷耶大法官关于司法与民主关系的最新力作
评分布雷耶大法官关于司法与民主关系的最新力作
评分布雷耶大法官关于司法与民主关系的最新力作
评分尽管美国宪法制定者们起了个好头,对法院寄予厚望,但马伯里诉麦迪逊过了五十年才有第二个审查案例而不至于使其成为绝响。事实上,从认为法院没用、自己不喜欢的判决大可不遵守到建立对司法的信仰,美国经历了长期的历史过程。这个历史过程表明,司法独立,不是司法独大,更不是期待司法成为救世主,而是期待以平衡的艺术达至更好的社会。为达至平衡,法官采用了实用主义的解释路径。然而,关于司法信仰的国民教育,美国依然任重而道远,毕竟调查显示,在这个三权分立的国家,只有1/3的美国人能够说出司法、行政、司法这三个分支的名字,还有3/4的美国人干脆根本不知道法官和立法者之间到底有什么区别。
评分尽管美国宪法制定者们起了个好头,对法院寄予厚望,但马伯里诉麦迪逊过了五十年才有第二个审查案例而不至于使其成为绝响。事实上,从认为法院没用、自己不喜欢的判决大可不遵守到建立对司法的信仰,美国经历了长期的历史过程。这个历史过程表明,司法独立,不是司法独大,更不是期待司法成为救世主,而是期待以平衡的艺术达至更好的社会。为达至平衡,法官采用了实用主义的解释路径。然而,关于司法信仰的国民教育,美国依然任重而道远,毕竟调查显示,在这个三权分立的国家,只有1/3的美国人能够说出司法、行政、司法这三个分支的名字,还有3/4的美国人干脆根本不知道法官和立法者之间到底有什么区别。
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有