Talk:Stephen Breyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Stephen Breyer is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page. Nomination date: 2007-03-23

Contents 1 Political 2 "Junior member" status 3 Senate hearings 4 Jewishness 5 Other Omissions 6 Legal career 7 Charles Breyer 8 Judicial Philosophy

[edit] 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.

[edit] "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)

[edit] Senate hearings

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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." —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)