Talk:Stephen Breyer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Political

just a thought, but if the entry is going to refer to him as a "moderate" shouldn't it cite some examples? i think most observers would consider him a pretty reliable member of the liberal bloc.

  • One really doesn't need "examples" of his moderate jurisprudence, because it's pretty much a matter of public record. I'd look to his confirmation hearings, his published books and articles, and certainly his opinions. It would be dangerous for Wikipedia to favor the currently fashionable "black-white" political spectrum over a contextual and historical-minded analysis, especially when it comes to the Judiciary. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court describes him as a moderate, as would most Supreme Court historians. I think we should go with that. -Thepinterpause 05:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You have to consider the changing definition of "black and white." Moderate is the gray area. In one decade, what was once gray could change to black or to white depending on the shifting of "mainstream" thought. Taking a look at who is in the presidency and who controls the majority of both houses of congress, it should be clear that the "moderate" or "mainstream" point of view has shifted to the white (right). Maybe this should be taken into account as to whether Breyer should be viewed as a moderate or as a liberal. When his views and opinions are consistently to the left of mainstream it is appropriate to label him as a liberal.

I have changed the wording of his view on abortion simply to make a point. My way has an obvious conservative spin on it just as the way it was has an obvious liberal spin(He has consistentently voted in favor of abortion rights) on it. Perhaps a better choice would be "He has consistenetly voted Pro-Choice." While I see that phrase as spin just as I understand "Pro-Life" to be conservative spin, I think they are more acceptable because they are mainstream terms.

"Junior member" status

He's obviously no longer the junior member, since Chief Justice Roberts is now confirmed, but I can't imagine the cheif being expected to fetch coffee. What happens now?

He is still the junior member in seniority (until O'Connor's replacement is sworn in). Seniority goes: Chief Justice first, then Associate Justices by length of service. NoSeptember 22:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Yep, the CJ is Primus inter pares. -- BD2412 talk 22:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Reading the UVA law school page that is the source for that part of the article makes it sound like Breyer was kidding mentioning that. It sounds more like the sort of thing you'd hear on The Daily Show (as much as I love said show). Are we sure that the junior justice really has to do that, even with the personal clerks each justice has? --BDD 05:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I doubt he literally has to fetch coffee, but I believe he does have to close the door to the official conference room (can't remember the real name) once all the justices have entered. --zenohockey 16:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Senate hearings

The article needs a section on Breyer's Senate hearings (which I know nothing about). --zenohockey 06:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewishness

I have rolled back the last edit becaue it does not seem appropriate to refer to him as a Jewish-American attorney in the first sentence. I see no reason why his Jewishness should be such a fundamental part of his entry as to be the first adjective in the entire article. Vincent Vecera 17:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your reasoning. As far as I recall, Breyer's ethnicity has never been a major issue (unlike what Benjamin Cardozo had to suffer through). --Coolcaesar 23:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not vene know if he is practicing because he married Christian. He was born cultirally, but many people are tokenly in their religions anyway... can we say nonreligious? Bona Fides 13:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Other Omissions

I highly doubt Breyer earned Eagle Scout at age 12. In fact, I think it might be chronologically impossible, given the three consecutive six-month-tenure requirements at Star, Life, and Eagle levels. Any reason not to delete this sentence? Doctawojo 12:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The article also does not mention that his wife is a member of the British aristocracy, or the recent controversy over the Kelo decision and libertarians pursuing eminent domain on his NH vacation home in response. His wife, Johanna Freda Hare Breyer, is the daughter of John Hare, 1st Viscount Blakenham. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.173.98.243 (talk • contribs) .

  • Hmm, check again under the "early life" section, it does mention his wife. Regarding Kelo, that was David Souter, not Breyer, that the libertarians were after, if I'm not mistaken. - Jersyko·talk 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Souter was targeted by a California Libertarian. Breyer is targeted by the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. A simple google for "breyer" "plainfield" "libertarian" and "eminent domain" will bring up a large number of news articles.

Legal career

There is an apparent contadiction that needs to be correct. "Breyer stayed at Harvard Law School until 1994, when he became a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government from 1977 to 1980." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.236.106.130 (talk • contribs)

  • I edited the sentence to read as follows: "Breyer stayed at Harvard Law School until 1994, and he also served as a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government from 1977 to 1980." I think this is what was trying to be expressed, but I would appreciate it if someone could confirm. - Jersyko talk 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Charles Breyer

I have re-added the info I added yesterday concerning his brother Charles with a quoted source following its reversion by Vincent Vecera --TommyBoy 21:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Judicial Philosophy

I would like to point out an error that I believe exists in this section. In one sentence, the entry states: "Scalia and Breyer are the only two justices since Felix Frankfurter with significant academic backgrounds."

Ruth Ginsburg also spent a good deal of her career in academia and I direct you to her profile, the follwoing quotes in particular. "She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law (Newark) from 1963-1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972-1980, where she became the first tenured woman and co-authored the first law school case book to be written on sex discrimination. She was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford University, California from 1977-1978." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenan407 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I will remove that sentence -- which I am embarrased to say, I put in. I guess what I had in mind was that Scalia and Breyer are considered the intellectual heavyweights on the Court, but "significant academic backgrounds" is open to interpretation. If someone wants to put it back in with a citation distinguishing Scalia and Breyer as I have tried to do, by all means do so. And thanks Brenan407 for the alert. Pan Dan 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the term "pragmatism" in this section. The word "pragmatism" is defined as "a practical approach to problems and affairs" and imply a straightforward read of the Constitution as it is written. Justice Breyer's many opinions, however, strongly reveal his well-known penchant for liberal interpretation, even to the point of directly opposing the Constitution itself. Case in point, his dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, wherein he states, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas," while the Constitution clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It requires a great deal of non-pragmatic, if not wildly liberal "re-interpretation" i.e. legislating from the bench to twist "shall not be infringed" into "by all means, let's infringe, especially in situations where loaded firearms are most needed." I respectfully request the term "pragmatism" and its forms as used in this section be replaced by the far more accurate "interpretive."Clepsydrae (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Pragmatism, as explained in the article aims to make the law work in the real world. There are several sources in the article, and Cass Sunstein's article is pretty good support for the use of pragmatism in the article. It's not about the most literal interpretation of the Constitution, as you have suggested. In any event, we go based on reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources that support your view? Knope7 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Status

I have reviewed this article and and believe that it meets all the criteria at Wikipedia:What is a good article?. I found only one major statement requiring a reference (that is in regards to his preference for not using footnotes), which was easily found online and I have placed it there. I have therefore assessed this article as GA on the assessment scale.

To further improve this article:

The article could be significantly improved by the addition of further images. There are alsoseveral items which I recommended addressing to further improve the article, beyond GA standard. I debated wheter the following meant the article was not GA, but do not believe they fall under something that is likely to be challenged, rather that it would be more encyclopedic if viewers had access to sources to explore further information e.g. on Breyer and his expertise at administrative law. So I suggest:

  • Please reference the following statement in the section 'legal career' - "At Harvard, Breyer was known as a leading expert on administrative law." Immediately after that I would suggest removing the phrase "highly influential" from "While there, he wrote two highly influential books on deregulation"
  • Please reference the following statement in the section 'judicial philosophy': "Breyer's pragmatism is considered the intellectual counterweight to Scalia's textualist philosophy."
  • The section 'Active Liberty' is a little lengthy and verbose. As this section contains a lot of quotations from Breyer, Berkowitz etc. I suggest rewriting to make more concise or even placing some of the quotations in quotation boxes.
  • Please provide an exact publication reference for the New Yorker citation, in the section 'active liberty': "article in The New Yorker in October 2005, "Breyer concedes that a judicial approach"

To get this article to FA status I also suggest expanding the lead section to reflect the length and subject of the article - see WP:Lead for more information. I also recommend expanding the section of his legal career in recent years, as there must be numerous articles etc on the web that fall under suitable references - WP:Ref, especially post 2000.LordHarris 01:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

LordHarris 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

1) The article lacks references for some important statements, which I marked with 'fact' tags. They should be added since this article is about a living person.

2) Trivia section should be removed.

3) The style of citations is not consistent. In 'Active Liberty' subsection the last two paragraphs simply mention a newspaper article and a discussion, but should have inline citations instead. In the third paragraph of same subsection a work called 'Democratizing The Constitution' is mentioned with a direct weblink to it, which should be converted into an inline citation.

4) The footnote 2 is simple weblink, but should have more information.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Ruslik 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Did two and four, and most of three (I can't find a transcript for the speech, I don't know if that means we need to remove it.) As to the first, I'm fairly sure all of that is in the listed references, but maybe they need to be made into refname and added to each sentence. I'll try to get to that today.Mackan79 14:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The only remaning issue is lack of a citation for the last paragraph of the 'Active Liberty' subsection. Ruslik 08:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Right -- I haven't been able to source that, although it seems credible, and I do see Breyer gave the speech. My inclincation would be to leave it in case it can be sourced in the future; otherwise, I suppose we could move it to the talk page. I'm fine either way if you have a preference or there's a protocol for GAs. Mackan79 14:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
See [1]]. Ruslik 15:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I inserted the last ref myself and I consider that this article has passed GA Sweep. Ruslik 08:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my delay, and thanks for making the change. That's the source I found which confirmed the speech; it doesn't mention the specific comment, but I think this is fair enough. Thanks for the review. Mackan79 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?

I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying that issue. I think such edits are ridiculous and should be reverted immediately. If User:Sjrplscjnky keeps it up without providing any justification, he/she should be classified as a troll or vandal and his/her edits should be reverted on sight. No encyclopedia that I'm aware of lists academic honors in the first paragraph like that after anyone's name (and I just did some research in all the major paper encyclopedias not too long ago for a work-related project). It looks sloppy and amateurish, and is exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia is striving for, which is a professional appearance. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says he's pragmatic? That's kind of an opinion, isn't it? --134.241.100.213 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Stephen Gerald Breyer was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Political Party

I know that he was appointed by a democrat, but is there a way to find out if he is registered with a political party?Racingstripes (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

prestigious Troop 14?

I call Bull Ship on one troop being more prestigious than another. I say remove the adjective 'prestigious'. The dude's a supreme court justice, he doesn't need to pad his resume. Geo8rge (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

World Justice Project

On February 25, 2010, an editor named Josh13ok (who no longer exists on Wikipedia) added this subsection. I'd like to delete it as I don't think it's notable and, without additional elaboration, I don't know how it relates to Breyer's judicial career. According to the WJP website, three current S.Ct. justices are honorary chairs - Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy. Only Breyer has it in his WP article. Although it may be a very worthy organization, I don't think being an honorary chair warrants mentioning. And if we're going to keep it in the article in whatever form, then we should probably add it to the other two justices' articles. If no one comments, I will delete it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The same IP who changed chair to co-chair in the Breyer article added a similar subsection to the Ginsburg article. I've undone the change pending some resolution of the discussion here. So far, no one has commented, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there's been no more comment, I removed the subsection from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Other views material

User:Wimania added some new material to this section here. He said the quote provided context. I reverted his edit saying that the quote was "jarring" and did not provide any context.

Wimania then left the following note on my Talk page:

That it is jarring is why it should be cited. Breyer's comment really communicates the tone of his interview. If you find the context lacking, when it provides the forum, date, and reason for noting Breyere's interview, then the word "context" is without meaning.

I figured it would be better discussed here.

In the interview, Breyer was clearly defending his position on the Second Amendment and gun control. The existing material in the article made that clear. The quote, which appears at the end of the Fox article, has no context at all if you just throw it into the Wikipedia article. Just before the quote, the Fox reporter said that Breyer was saying that DC could ban handguns, ostensibly because, in Breyer's view, there is no individual constitutional right to bear arms. On the heels of that, Breyer says that someone who wants to use handguns can go to a jurisdiction (Maryland) that doesn't ban handguns. Now that's all very interesting, but putting aside whether it's worth going into in detail, the quote in and of itself doesn't convey Breyer's message. If we were going to include the quote, we'd have to explain the context of the quote, and the existing material doesn't, so we'd have to add even more than just the quote.

My ultimate view is the quote and the surrounding context is unnecessary to the article. The existing sentence in the Wikipedia article is sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be your ultimate view, but it appears to be based on your ultimate personal taste rather than any objective criterion related to improving the article. Breyer not only dismissed the majority opinion in an erudite manner befitting a Justice (".... Breyer stated that based on the values and the historical record, the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated and that history supports his and the other dissenters' views ...."), he outright scoffed at the rights of gun owners and Wallace's comments. His retort was sufficiently outrageous that it made news nationwide.
Now, if you think directly quoting a referenced interview on national television is insufficient to justify quoting from said interview, such that "we'd have to explain the context of the quote", I might point out that his dissent already explained in some detail that based on the values and the historical record, he believes the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated and that history supports his views. So we can delete the material preceding my suggested quotation.
It is one, or the other. However, I appreciate that you don't care for the quotation. If I was a fan of Breyer, I wouldn't either. Wimania (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Robbery

Stephen Breyer was robbed by a machete-wielding attacker in his vacation home on the island of Nevis at 9 PM EST Thursday, as reported by the Associated Press. Is this notable enough to include in the article?

I thought about it but decided it wasn't noteworthy enough to include. It just seems like a small blip in his personal life that has no relevance to his career and not even very much impact on his life otherwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest GA reassessment

Just noting that I have closed the reasessment as no consensus. I frankly would have delisted for lack of broadness, but there was too few comments and no consensus to take any action. Safiel (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephen Breyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Peter Berkowitz the neocon?

From the article as of 2/12/2018:

  • Both of the books' historical premises and practical prescriptions have been challenged. For example, according to Peter Berkowitz,[32] the reason that "[t]he primarily democratic nature of the Constitution's governmental structure has not always seemed obvious", as Breyer puts it, is "because it's not true, at least in Breyer's sense that the Constitution elevates active liberty above modern [negative] liberty". Breyer's position "demonstrates not fidelity to the Constitution", Berkowitz argues, "but rather a determination to rewrite the Constitution's priorities". Berkowitz suggests that Breyer is also inconsistent, in failing to apply this standard to the issue of abortion, instead preferring decisions "that protect women's modern liberty, which remove controversial issues from democratic discourse". Failing to answer the textualist charge that the Living Documentarian Judge is a law unto himself, Berkowitz argues that Active Liberty "suggests that when necessary, instead of choosing the consequence that serves what he regards as the Constitution’s leading purpose, Breyer will determine the Constitution’s leading purpose on the basis of the consequence that he prefers to vindicate".
This paragraph has a serious problem. It's not coming from a mainstream conservative jurist, Berkowitz is farther to the right than even Scalia. That means the criticism probably loses punch with a reader that has legal knowledge. More important, if we can't find a mainstream conservative critic to quote on Breyer's books, we're not going to get a measured view of what Breyer really is as a justice. It should be possible to find a review by some legal scholar with views akin to those of Justice Roberts or former Justice O'Connor, Justice Warren Burger, or even of Justice Scalia. If such a review were found and quotes were included in this article, then I'm okay with also including Berkowitz's opinion. But otherwise, it's too unbalanced and strange to have just Berkowitzs quote.144.35.45.42 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request August 29 2019

The "(list)" link leads to a parent article about Supreme Court law clerks,but the article with the list on which Breyer appears is the "(seat 2)" article there linked. Might as well skip the intermediate link and link directly there.12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Service in the army

The article currently states that Breyer served eight years in the U. S. Army, when it is obvious he served in the army reserve. He was at Oxford University in England, and Harvard Law School, during his military "service" and he was discharged as a corporal after eight years, so it could not have been active duty. I have edited the article to indicate the reserves to avoid confusion.Polkadreamer (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Breyer/Archive_1&oldid=1141970853"