The Justices ' Jurisprudence, And Philosophy Of Law Essay

770 Words Jul 23rd, 2016 4 Pages
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 idea that the Constitution should adapt to our perpetually changing society. This results in a broad interpretation of the law. Unlike Justice Breyer, Justice Scalia’s political ideology is conservative. Justice Scalia’s interpretation style is Originalist. Essentially, as an Originalist, Justice Scalia is not a fan of the analogy that the Constitution is an organic organism that adapts to society’s changing norms in order to survive. Instead, Justice Scalia supports the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted the same way today as it would have been when the Constitution was ratified in the eighteenth century. As seen in the interview, Scalia states his belief that those who do not follow the Originalist approach are overstepping…

Related Documents