Stephen Breyer – författare

What role should courts play in a modern democracy? How should fundamental provisions of a democratic constitution be interpreted? These questions have divided constitutional theorists and those responsible for interpreting and applying constitutional law including, notoriously, the current U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Breyer is the most prominent liberal voice in the Supreme Court, this book distils his experience of interpreting the U.S. constitution and outlines a general liberal theory of the role of constitutional courts.Breyer argues that the primary role of a democratic constitution is to preserve and encourage 'Active Liberty': citizen participation in shaping government and its laws. The book argues that promoting active liberty requires judicial modesty and deference to legislative bodies; it also requires the recognition of the changing needs and demands of the populace. Breyer makes a powerful case against treating constitutions as a static guide for a world that has passed into history.Throughout the book, active liberty is employed as a foundational concept to illuminate the interpretation of key constitutional questions, and recent Supreme Court controversies, such as the scope of free speech and racial equality protection.For this revised, international edition of the book, Justice Breyer extends his discussion of democratic theory to examine topical questions in European constitutional law, including the legitimacy of the European Union, religious freedom under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The American Supreme Court is one of the most powerful and controversial judicial bodies in the world. The Court has assumed the role of settling fundamental issues of American social policy through its power of constitutional interpretation, and its rulings are among the most divisive, and controversial events in American political life.How did the American court come to acquire such power? How does it maintain its authority and public confidence in the face of deep political divides. In this book Stephen Breyer, a leading intellect in the current Court, gives an insider's view on how America's Supreme Court came to acquire such a prominent role in American public life, how the Court operates, and how it can continue to maintain the trust of the American public as the final arbiter of the values underlying America's democratic constitution.Breyer introduces the history of the Court by telling the stories of the landmark cases that defined the role the Court would play in American politics. He then offers a powerful restatement of his views on how a constitutional court should fulfil its function as final interpreter of a democratic constitution. In doing so, he examines some of the Court's most controversial recent decisions, on issues such as the legality of detention in Guantanamo Bay, and the scope of protection of gun ownership in Heller.The book offers a unique introduction to how the American Supreme Court does and should operate, invaluable to all students of American law and politics, and anyone looking to understand the workings of American politics.

Breaking the Vicious Circle is a tour de force that should be read by everyone who is interested in improving our regulatory processes. Written by a highly respected federal judge, who would go on to serve on the Supreme Court, and who obviously recognizes the necessity of regulation but perceives its failures and weaknesses as well, it pinpoints the most serious problems and offers a creative solution that would for the first time bring rationality to bear on the vital issue of priorities in our era of limited resources.

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.A growing chorus of officials and commentators argues that the Supreme Court has become too political. 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. Stephen Breyer, drawing upon his experience as a Supreme Court justice, sounds a cautionary note. Mindful of the Court’s history, he suggests that the judiciary’s hard-won authority could be marred by reforms premised on the assumption of ideological bias. Having, as Hamilton observed, “no influence over either the sword or the purse,” the Court earned its authority by making decisions that have, over time, increased the public’s trust. If public trust is now in decline, one part of the solution is to promote better understandings of how the judiciary actually works: how judges adhere to their oaths and how they try to avoid considerations of politics and popularity.Breyer warns that political intervention could itself further erode public trust. Without the public’s trust, the Court would no longer be able to act as a check on the other branches of government or as a guarantor of the rule of law, risking serious harm to our constitutional system.

This book will become the bible of regulatory reform. No broad, authoritative treatment of the subject has been available for many years except for Alfred Kahn’s Economics of Regulation (1970). And Stephen Breyer’s book is not merely a utilitarian analysis or a legal discussion of procedures; it employs the widest possible perspective to survey the full implications of government regulation—economic, legal, administrative, political—while addressing the complex problems of administering regulatory agencies.Only a scholar with Judge Breyer’s practical experience as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee could have accomplished this task. He develops an ingenious original system for classifying regulatory activities according to the kinds of problems that have called for, or have seemed to call for, regulation; he then examines how well or poorly various regulatory regimes remedy these market defects. This enables him to organize an enormous amount of material in a coherent way, and to make significant and useful generalizations about real-world problems.Among the regulatory areas he considers are health and safety; environmental pollution, trucking, airlines, natural gas, public utilities, and telecommunications. He further gives attention to related topics such as cost-of-service ratemaking, safety standards, antitrust, and property rights. Clearly this is a book whose time is here—a veritable how-to-do-it book for administration deregulators, legislators, and the judiciary; and because it is comprehensive and superbly organized, with a wealth of highly detailed examples, it is practical for use in law schools and in courses on economics and political science.

“A decision the Court and the Nation will come to regret.”Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court struck down two local school board initiatives meant to reverse extreme racial segregation in public schools. The sharply divided 5-4 decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District marked the end of an era of efforts by local authorities to fulfill the promise of racially integrated education envisioned by the Supreme Court in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. In a searing landmark dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer warned this was “a decision the Court and the Nation will come to regret.” A decade later, the unabated resegregation of America's schools continues to confirm Justice Breyer's fears, as many schools and school districts across the country are more racially segregated today than they were in the late 1960s.Edited and introduced by Justice Breyer's former law clerk—and accompanied by a sobering update on the state of segregated schools in America today—this volume contains the full text of Justice Breyer's most impassioned opinion, a dissent that Justice John Paul Stevens called at the time “eloquent and unanswerable.” The cautionary words of Justice Breyer should echo in classrooms across the country and in the hearts and minds of parents and schoolchildren everywhere.

A landmark dissenting opinion arguing against the death penalty.Does the death penalty violate the Constitution? In Against the Death Penalty, Justice Stephen Breyer argues that it does; that it is carried out unfairly and inconsistently and, thus, violates the ban on ""cruel and unusual punishments"" specified by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.“Today’s administration of the death penalty,” Breyer writes, “involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use.”This volume contains Breyer's dissent in the case of Glossip v. Gross, which involved an unsuccessful challenge to Oklahoma's use of a lethal-injection drug because it might cause severe pain. Justice Breyer's legal citations have been edited to make them understandable to a general audience, but the text retains the full force of his powerful argument that the time has come for the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of the death penalty.Breyer was joined in his dissent from the bench by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their passionate argument has been cited by many legal experts including fellow Justice Antonin Scalia—as signaling an eventual Court ruling striking down the death penalty. A similar dissent in 1963 by Breyer's mentor, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, helped set the stage for a later ruling, imposing what turned out to be a four-year moratorium on executions.