In “Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s Views, ” Stephen Breyer, a Supreme Court justice, outlines how the justice system’s US constitution should work. President Clinton appointed him as a Supreme Court judge in 1994 and provided some explanations of the constitution that differed from his colleagues. Breyer has made several corrections to the Supreme Court’s role, outlined in this paper. The fundamental role of the Supreme Court is to explain the US constitution to the public without political affiliations
Breyer’s works have significantly impacted how to reform the Supreme Court. He addresses how the legitimacy of the Supreme Court has declined before the eyes of the public. He shows how to balance the interests of different societal stakeholders and his reverence for history (Breyer 14). Additionally, political polarisation has threatened public confidence in the Supreme Court. Breyer knows that the citizen’s trust is based on an impartial decision-making process, and sometimes the people may not like it.
Besides, he criticises politicians and new media on how they describe the Supreme Court (Biskupic). For instance, Breyer criticises how jurists are identified with the president who appointed them and their political affiliations. Senators are likely to oppose a nominee because he is too liberal or conservative. In addition, how the media reports reinforce that Supreme Court decisions are made based on politics and not legal merits. Although political groups may favour judges in the Supreme Court, they should serve all sides fairly after their appointment.
Breyer reinstates his point about the importance of public trust in the court. Public trust in the Supreme Court should not be taken for granted by either people inside or beyond its walls. The justices’ decisions guide the behaviour of all Americans, and the court has the authority to check on the constitution and other government branches (Millhiser). The adherence to Supreme Court decisions by presidents, although they condemn them, is one way of enhancing public trust.
Breyer supports the proposal of making structural changes to the Supreme Court to add more seats to balance the political divide. President Biden appointed a partisan commission to explore those proposals and is yet to bring its report back (Breyer 33). Conservatives have dominated the Supreme Court; balancing it with the liberals will add more public trust as each side will feel equally represented. Therefore, it is the Supreme Court’s role to ensure public trust, and if balancing the seats for conservatives and liberals will help, the Supreme Court should do it.
Breyer is known for helping the bridge-building process through crafting a consensus. He demonstrated this for the first time when he negotiated a consensus after the court upheld Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court had initially been labelled conservative; however, he is keen to point out some incidents that show it is not (Oxner). For instance, in the 2012 case, Breyer praises Chief Justice John Roberts for joining the liberals in the decision-making to rule in favour of the liberals despite being considered a conservative (Breyer 38). Robert’s vote to preserve Obamacare was essential to the politically charged case and has helped deliver healthcare to all Americans despite their political affiliation. Thus, it is the role of the Supreme Court to ensure that it reaches a consensus between conservatives and liberals for the interests of the citizens rather than based on political affiliations.
I believe the Supreme Court’s role is to ensure that the constitution is upheld and translated to the citizens. There are various things that it must put into regard to ensure that the constitution is upheld. The first thing is that it must gain public trust because it provides support for their rulings. I agree with Breyer that public trust is very important for the supreme court because it determines adherence to court rulings and protects the dignity of the supreme court (Bomboy). Even presidents are likely to obey Supreme Court rulings when there is public trust. This shows that public trust plays a key role in ensuring that the decision of the Supreme Court and other courts are upheld, which implies that it is important for the supreme court to make decisions fairly to win public confidence.
The other important aspect that I think is the Supreme Court’s role and should be upheld is making decisions without political affiliations. The constitution should guide the Supreme Court and make fair decisions for all people and cases despite political affiliation. I agree with Breyer’s statement that most people think conservationists dominate the Supreme Court. However, for the Supreme Court to change that notion within the people, they should make just decisions with the interests of the American citizens a priority. The judges need to choose what is right instead of falling to their political affiliations, just like in the 2012 Obama case. The court is an independent institution that should run and operate without political pressures.
Works Cited
Biskupic, Joan. “Breyer’s role on the Supreme Court and the hole he’s leaving | CNN Politics.” CNN. 2022. Web.
Bomboy, Scott. “Stephen Breyer’s Supreme Court legacy – National constitution centre.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter. 2022. Web.
Breyer, Stephen G. The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics. Harvard University Press, 2021, pp. 1–101.
Millhiser, Ian. “Justice Breyer’s new warning for democrats couldn’t have come at a worse time.” Vox, 2021. Web.
Oxner, Reese. “Here’s a look at Justice Stephen Breyer’s legacy on Texas cases.” The Texas Tribune. 2022. Web.