Two Justices Jurisprudence

I believe that these two justices’ jurisprudence, or philosophy of law, is shaped by their political ideologies. This is not to say, however, that I believe that the two justices’ political ideologies affect their ability to come to objective decisions since ultimately, their most important task is to remain impartial. The two SCOTUS justices are on the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. In addition to their opposite ideologies, the pair has two completely different philosophies of law and therefore, vary in their methods of interpretation. Justice Breyer’s political alignment is more towards the liberal side of the court. As for his interpretation style, he is a Developmentalist, and as a Developmentalist Justice Breyer follows the …show more content…
In the interview, Justice Breyer mentions the six tools that justices have at their disposal while they are deciding their opinions. These six tools include text, history, tradition, precedent, purpose, and consequence. Justice Breyer brings up the point that while forming decisions, some Justices give emphasis to the first four of these tools and evade using the final two of the tools because these justices believe that considering purpose and consequence create subjectivity in the formation of opinions. However, by using the tools of purpose and consequence and then openly explaining in either an opinion or dissent how the use of these tools lead to the formation of a decision, Justice Breyer argues that a judge is able to remain objective. This is Justice Breyer, a Developmentalist, defending his interpretational style. Scalia, on the other hand, is inclined to avoid using the tools of purpose and consequence because he believes they create subjectivity. Scalia also makes the argument that the meaning of the Constitution is not supposed to change generation to generation and that the open language of the Constitution is there for the legislative branch to create law, not for SCOTUS justices to make up their own laws based on the text. In the interview, Scalia argues against the Developmentalist approach. He even goes so far as to criticize it by comparing the Constitution to an empty bottle where each generation pours the liquid of its choice into it. Basically, Scalia’s argument centers around his belief that the Developmentalist approach results in judges reflecting their own morals their decision instead of remaining objective and sticking to what the text says. Since Justice Breyer is more likely to incorporate all six tools while he forms his opinions on cases, he is likely to make a broader decision, and thus will is very likely to face