The paper "Supreme Court Justice Debate the Constitution" is an outstanding example of an essay on law. To start with, Court judges Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia are legitimate extremes, however in no way, shape or form enemies. In October 2011, the two Justices testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee in Congress (Andrea, 2011). The conversation forms the foundation of all legal debates and how to translate the Constitution of the United States of America. For close to two hours, the Justices talked about the contrasts between the role of judges and their judicial philosophies.
The open debate has Scalia and Breyer explaining the likelihood of persuasion, drawbacks of Constitutional history, and the possibility or existence of Justice and equity. Without any doubt, the two Justices concur more than they differ. Collectively, they concur in most of the cases they considered. Justice Scalia accepts the fact that judges ought to focus and strictly observe the expectations of the mastermind behind the expressions of the Constitution. Indeed, Scalia is considerate about any deviations from the initial meaning of the Constitutions content.
He unequivocally condemns Supreme Court rulings that enhance activist judiciary rather than playing a neural part in a democratic society (Moran, 2011, p30). However, Justice Breyer believes that the ideas outlined by the framers of the Constitution should be restructured to apply to modern society. Breyer concentrates fundamentally on making Americas examination in democracy useful by giving a voice to the people through the aggregate judgments and opinions of the nine unelected Justices of the Supreme Court (p. 36)In conclusion, Justices Scalia and Breyer talk about the diverse speculations of how to translate and implement the U. S Constitution to cases and how they influence democracy and the daily lives of American citizens.
While Justice Breyer interprets the Constitution by using the Living Constitution approach, Scalia expresses his concerns using the Textual approach. As observed, the two Justices concur that there is a misrepresentation of legal moderation and that religion cases are hard. Also, Scalia and Breyer agree to the fact that judicial activism bears no results.