If the Constitution isn't to be interpreted rigidly, how is it to protect minorities from majorities? From the New York Post:
Breyer continued, literature and law aren’t all that different: “The Constitution, much like any literary text, should not be interpreted rigidly. It’s a living text, open to interpretation. . . It is this practical application of the Constitution that makes its interpretation such an exciting thing.” . . .
Breyer is an moron. The Constitution is an absolute. When we have idiots like Breyer saying that it is not, and Breyer and his ilk create chaos via ideologicaly driven interpretations of that which is the foundation of our country, Tyranny will always trump the will of the people.
ReplyDeleteToo bad so many think the way Breyer does.
Then again, if one cannot convince others to surrender their inalienable rights, one must then sieze them by other means.
How did Breyer get through confirmation? Was he asked about this evolving constitution position? Did he answer as he is now pontificating? Or was he lying during confirmation hearings?
ReplyDelete