Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the most liberal judges on the Supreme Court, will be knocking the far-left proposal of court packing in his upcoming book.
Though Breyer has repeatedly denounced court packing in past statements, his book, “The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics,” will come at a time when Democrats have been seriously flirting with the idea to shift the court’s power balance. According to Harvard University Press, Breyer will reflect upon how the authority of the Supreme Court will be diminished if it becomes a game of political football.
“A sitting justice reflects upon the authority of the Supreme Court — how that authority was gained and how measures to restructure the Court could undermine both the Court and the constitutional system of checks and balances that depends on it,” the publisher wrote in a synopsis of his book.
Breyer’s book will further argue that the Supreme Court should not be subjected to partisan politics, Right or Left.
“A growing chorus of officials and commentators argues that the Supreme Court has become too political,” Harvard University Press wrote. “On this view the confirmation process is just an exercise in partisan agenda-setting, and the jurists are no more than ‘politicians in robes’ ― their ostensibly neutral judicial philosophies mere camouflage for conservative or liberal convictions. As a result of this perceived crisis, and for the first time since the New Deal era, there is serious talk of court-packing in the name of ideological balance.”
“Breyer warns that public trust would be eroded by political intervention, dashing the authority of the Court,” the outlet elaborated. “Without the public’s trust, the Court would no longer be able to act as a check on the other branches of government and a guarantor of the rule of law, threatening the foundations of our constitutional system.”
Breyer will further argue that the solution to a decline in public trust will be to better educate the public about an independent judiciary.
“If public trust is now in decline, the solution is to promote better understanding of how the judiciary actually works: Overwhelmingly, judges adhere to their oath to avoid considerations of politics and popularity,” added Harvard University Press. “The peril facing the Supreme Court comes less from partisan judges than from citizens who, encouraged by politicians, equate impartial justice with agreeable judicial outcomes.”
In April, reports surfaced that Senate and House Democrats were working on legislation that would add four new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, Justice Breyer said that court packing would erode any and all trust in the judiciary.
“If the public sees judges as ‘politicians in robes,’ its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including its power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches,” Breyer said in a speech to Harvard Law.
“The court’s decision in the 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore, is often referred to as an example of its favoritism of conservative causes,” he later added. “But the court did not hear or decide cases that affected the political disagreements arising out of the 2020 Trump v. Biden election. It did uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare, the health care program favored by liberals,” Breyer said in noting some of the things that the court has sided with liberals on. “It did re-affirm precedents that favored a woman’s right to an abortion. It did find unlawful certain immigration, census, and other orders, rules, or regulations, favored by a conservative president.”
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.
Source: Dailywire
