Retired Justice Stephen Breyer recently conversed with law student Ibrain Hernández Rangel about the latter’s latest book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism. The dialogue, which traversed career milestones and Breyer’s perspective on the role of judges in a constitutional democracy, was condensed for brevity and lucidity. Read more on
SCOTUSblog.
Breyer reflected candidly on his career influencers, among them Arthur Golberg, Archie Cox, and Senator Ted Kennedy, highlighting the lessons they imparted, from persistence after a loss to integrity in the face of complex cases to reaching across ideological divides in problem-solving.
As for his favorite role in his career, Breyer chose his time as counsel to the Judiciary Committee under Senator Kennedy, lauding the collected effort of individuals with diverse skills and backgrounds. He also discussed his tenure as a Supreme Court justice, from the political nature of the nomination process to the unique dynamics on the bench, including an unwritten rule ensuring equitable conversation during private meetings.
Concerning his book’s focal approach of pragmatism in constitutional analysis, Breyer voiced his belief in considering the law’s underlying purposes and ensuing impacts, alongside the text and historical context, particularly in the face of its ambiguity. This stance factors into the level of obedience citizens show to the rule of law, an issue Breyer believes justices should acknowledge and consider, given their relationship with public perception and respect for judiciary decisions.
Breyer’s final advice to law students reflected the blend of planning and adaptability he learned from his own journey: prepare intensively but stay open to shifts in both public and private sector opportunities, as the richness of their combined experience can fuel one’s professional development.