Reading the Constitution

Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism

De: Stephen Breyer

Narrado por: Stephen Breyer

Duración: 12 h y 16 m

Resumen del Editor

A provocative, brilliant 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.

“You will not read a more important legal work this election year.” —Bob Woodward, Washington Post reporter and author of fifteen #1 New York Times bestselling books
“A dissent for the ages.” —The Washington Post
“Breyer’s candor about the state of the court is refreshing and much needed.” —The Boston Globe

The relatively new judicial philosophy of textualism dominates the Supreme Court. Textualists claim that the right way to interpret the Constitution and statutes is to read the text carefully and examine the language as it was understood at the time the documents were written.

This, however, is not Justice Breyer’s philosophy nor has it been the traditional way to interpret the Constitution since the time of Chief Justice John Marshall. Justice Breyer recalls Marshall’s exhortation that the Constitution must be a workable set of principles to be interpreted by subsequent generations.

Most important in interpreting law, says Breyer, is to understand the purposes of statutes as well as the consequences of deciding a case one way or another. He illustrates these principles by examining some of the most important cases in the nation’s history, among them the Dobbs and Bruen decisions from 2022 that he argues were wrongly decided and have led to harmful results.

©2024 Stephen Breyer (P)2024 Simon & Schuster Audio

A reflection of current times

This is a monumental book that clearly defines the current times and should be read by every citizen who values the concepts put forward by the Constitution and the founding fathers. It was written so that every American can understand the meaning of the Constitution without being a lawyer or a student of law.

My Opinion

I enjoyed this book because it gave me food for thought in 2024 when Democracy is being challenged and rights being removed from Americans.

Essential Read for Anyone Trying to Understand the Modern SCOTUS

I absolutely loved this book and I shared the “snail dilemma” with my Business Law course. It’s a timely book and is though provoking and provides an in-depth understanding of the pitfalls of Textualism and Originalism - well beyond one’s typical understanding, perhaps based more on the “political realities” of the matter. Breyer goes behind the scenes and explains how he decided cases, providing excellent insight. I only wish Breyer had been Chief Justice. Breyer is an American Treasure. I highly recommend this book.

Thoroughly engaging book.

Never a dull moment. Wisely edited with a noted nod to the editors. The flow is natural. It felt like a condensed Constitution course without getting preachy. Very pragmatic ;)

Masterful

This work is one that shows both a deep understanding of jurisprudence and of the English language.

Everyone should listen to this to understand better what is happening with the court. So helpful for context!

I thought the historical aspect was so very valuable. And the explanation of the differing philosophies was simple and easy to understand. helped so very much to understand some of what feels like chaos when watching the news. Taking the time to walk thru case examples was great learning reenforcement. Lastly, we should all realize how critical our votes are as it relates to this most important aspect of our government.

Interesting yet unconvincing

I really liked the book and enjoyed the many examples. Nevertheless, I was not convinced that “pragmatism” is significantly superior to “textualism”. Both systems are subject to bias, cherry picking, and over generalization. Both systems seem equally problematic.

The narration was quite laidback (I listened at 1.5) but excellent.

Very Annoying Narration

I should have listened to a sample before getting this. The narration is so annoying. I thought that a former Justice would have a decent delivery, but the narration is halting and the vocal variety is too severe. Breyer often raises his voice for emphasis, I guess. This jolting delivery makes it hard to follow what he's saying. I can't really judge the content because the way he reads his book is so distracting. Fortunately, I have the book in print, so at least I'll have a better chance of following what he's trying to say. The narration is so bad that I couldn't get beyond two chapters. )-: I wish he had chosen a professional narrator for this work.