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.
这本书合着任东来的《美国宪政历程:影响美国的25个司法大案》一起看,收益颇丰,给我印象最深的,美国宪法保护少数人的权利,保护言论自由,不是空炮,而是实实在在发生的。 这本书由实际的案例出发,穿插着法官判案的原则与最高法院遵循的原则,解释了美国人民为何会执行最高...
評分法官能为改革做些什么?——书评《法官能为民主做什么》 很久以前读过最高人民法院何帆的译作《法官能为民主做什么》,系现任美国联邦最高法院大法官斯蒂芬•布雷耶(Stephen Breyer)撰写的一本书,通过回顾“马伯里诉麦迪逊案”、“切诺基印第安人案”、“黑奴公民身份案”...
評分在《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...
評分这本书合着任东来的《美国宪政历程:影响美国的25个司法大案》一起看,收益颇丰,给我印象最深的,美国宪法保护少数人的权利,保护言论自由,不是空炮,而是实实在在发生的。 这本书由实际的案例出发,穿插着法官判案的原则与最高法院遵循的原则,解释了美国人民为何会执行最高...
評分"为什么法院说什么,美国人都会照办?“当一位非洲法官向布雷耶大法官提出这个问题时,我真的很想狠狠的拥抱这位老姐,大喊一声知己呀,这可是问出了我憋了很久的问题呀。为什么美国人民偏偏要听从既没有”钱袋子“,也没有掌握”枪杆子“的九个小老头,而且这些个老头偏...
值得看一下。其他感觸:1)美國人法律意識長期淡薄:憲法生效一個半世紀後還有政府官員和法院決定對著乾,2)美國人權曆史一片黑暗:撕毀和印第安人的協議,把人傢從自己的地上趕走(trail of tears);二戰時把日裔美國人關在集中營裏。誰知道哪天會不會把所有的華裔也這麼關起來。
评分值得看一下。其他感觸:1)美國人法律意識長期淡薄:憲法生效一個半世紀後還有政府官員和法院決定對著乾,2)美國人權曆史一片黑暗:撕毀和印第安人的協議,把人傢從自己的地上趕走(trail of tears);二戰時把日裔美國人關在集中營裏。誰知道哪天會不會把所有的華裔也這麼關起來。
评分值得看一下。其他感觸:1)美國人法律意識長期淡薄:憲法生效一個半世紀後還有政府官員和法院決定對著乾,2)美國人權曆史一片黑暗:撕毀和印第安人的協議,把人傢從自己的地上趕走(trail of tears);二戰時把日裔美國人關在集中營裏。誰知道哪天會不會把所有的華裔也這麼關起來。
评分權威 老生長談 主流思想
评分值得看一下。其他感觸:1)美國人法律意識長期淡薄:憲法生效一個半世紀後還有政府官員和法院決定對著乾,2)美國人權曆史一片黑暗:撕毀和印第安人的協議,把人傢從自己的地上趕走(trail of tears);二戰時把日裔美國人關在集中營裏。誰知道哪天會不會把所有的華裔也這麼關起來。
本站所有內容均為互聯網搜索引擎提供的公開搜索信息,本站不存儲任何數據與內容,任何內容與數據均與本站無關,如有需要請聯繫相關搜索引擎包括但不限於百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美書屋 版权所有