However, this is not a realistic endeavor. In his defense of active liberty, Stephen Breyer argued that, because the law has a direct effect on daily life, judges should "look to consequences, including contemporary conditions..." Breyer reasoned that because provisions of the Supreme Court are not applied in a vacuum, it's best that they are not synthesized in one. Breyer's judicial philosophy is the more practical, modern alternative to extremist originalism promoted by strict …show more content…
Simmons. He espoused that the Supreme Court needs limitations on the "degree of abstraction" upon an Amendment's "major premise." Bork believed that basing judgments on society’s moral compass denied the Constitution as law. He advocated for judgments based upon the Founder’s intentions rather than tenuous moral philosophy. He argued that "only by limiting themselves to the historic intentions underlying each clause of the Constitution" could Supreme Court Justices prevent themselves from becoming legislators. But often the intentions of the Founding Fathers do not coincide with the goals of a modern society. We often forget that the framers of the Constitution were white, slave-holding men who would sooner scrap the Constitution altogether than extend equal rights to women and African-Americans. The Constitution was often utilized to defend the institution of slavery. Consideration of modern moral philosophy in tandem with the Constitutional frameworks ended the institution. If the Court defers only to the historical intent and only subscribes to eighteenth-century rhetoric, it risks stagnating the progression of our entire