Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer defended Justice Sonia Sotomayor against calls for her resignation, stating that she is still relatively young compared to himself. Breyer, who retired at the age of 83, made these comments in response to calls for Sotomayor to step down before the upcoming presidential election. Some left-leaning pundits and academics argue that Sotomayor’s resignation under the Biden administration could allow for a Democrat-controlled Senate to approve a replacement, ensuring a liberal-leaning justice remains in the seat.
Breyer emphasized that the decision to retire is ultimately up to the judge and that Sotomayor, who is 69 years old, still has time ahead of her. Sotomayor has served on the Supreme Court since 2009 and is the oldest liberal-leaning justice on the court. However, there are concerns that if she does not retire under the Biden administration, Republicans could take control of the White House and Senate, potentially leading to the appointment of a conservative justice. Breyer, in his interview with “Fox News Sunday,” discussed the importance of timing when considering retirement from the court.
In addition to defending Sotomayor, Breyer also reflected on his friendship with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, with whom he had differing legal opinions. Breyer is known as a pragmatist, interpreting the law based on social context, while Scalia was a textualist, focusing on the literal meaning of the law. Despite their differences, Breyer and Scalia maintained a close friendship, exemplified by a visit to students in Lubbock, Texas, where they debated legal opinions while showing their mutual respect and affection.
Breyer recalled moments of debate with Scalia, in which they discussed the complexities of interpreting laws written over two centuries ago in the context of modern society. This contrasted with Scalia’s more straightforward approach to textualism, leading to spirited conversations about constitutional interpretation. Scalia’s sudden death in 2016 put an end to their public debates, but Breyer continues to highlight the importance of considering evolving social values when interpreting the Constitution.
The interview with Breyer also touched on his criticism of conservative justices for their decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Breyer’s new book, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism,” expands on his view of the law and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting it. Despite facing pressure from the left to retire before the Republicans seize the Senate, Breyer remains committed to the integrity of the court and the importance of considering evolving societal norms in legal decisions.
Overall, Breyer’s comments reflect his perspective on the judiciary and the importance of timing in judicial resignations. By defending Sotomayor, reflecting on his friendship with Scalia, and highlighting the nuances of legal interpretation, he underscores the complexities of serving on the nation’s highest court. As debates continue over the future of the Supreme Court and the selection of justices, Breyer’s insights provide valuable perspective on the balance between personal decisions and larger political considerations within the judiciary.
