PREMIUM FEATURE
Advanced Search Filters
Filter search results by source, date, and more with our premium search tools.
It is possible that the critics of cross-referencing worry that the practice of citing foreign decisions will lead American judges to decide cases no… - Stephen Breyer
" "It is possible that the critics of cross-referencing worry that the practice of citing foreign decisions will lead American judges to decide cases not through legal analysis but through “nose-counting” — that is, tallying up the number of countries on each side.19 There is a further worry, not entirely unfounded, that foreign opinions are subject to misunderstanding, because American judges are unlikely to grasp the foreign contexts in which those decisions arise.20 Moreover, even if the decisions of foreign courts do not bind American judges, they can influence them — indeed, that is the very aim of the cross-referencing practice. Finally, those who see judges throughout the world as belonging to the same social caste — one sharing generally “leftish” political views, and perhaps including state court judges, law professors, and lawyers generally — may not believe that this influence is salutary. Wielded by those whom Americans have virtually no voice in choosing, this influence, it is feared, could easily get out of hand, undermining basic American democratic values.21
English
Collect this quote
About Stephen Breyer
Stephen Breyer (born August 15, 1938) is an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1994 to 2022. He was nominated by President Bill Clinton, and replaced retiring justice Harry Blackmun. Upon retirement, he was replaced by one of his former clerks, Ketanji Brown Jackson. Breyer was associated with the liberal wing of the Court.
Biography information from Wikiquote
Also Known As
Birth Name:
Stephen Gerald Breyer
Related quotes. More quotes will automatically load as you scroll down, or you can use the load more buttons.
Additional quotes by Stephen Breyer
Ironically, the only two “relevan[t]” metrics that the Court does identify are “how and why” a gun control regulation “burden[s the] right to armed self-defense.” In other words, the Court believes that the most relevant metrics of comparison are a regulation’s means (how) and ends (why) — even as it rejects the utility of means-end scrutiny.
I take this around at my job. (Holds up a copy of the US Constitution.) People have come to accept this Constitution, and they've come to accept the importance of a rule of law. And [I] say: Look, of course people don't agree, but we have a country that is based on human rights, democracy, and so forth. . . . I'll tell you what Lincoln thought, what Washington thought, and what people today still think: It's an experiment. . . . It's an experiment that's still going on. You know who will see whether that experiment works? It's you, my friend. . . . It's that next generation, and the one after that - my grandchildren and their children. They'll determine whether the experiment still works. And, of course, I am an optimist. . . . I'm pretty sure it will.
Works in ChatGPT, Claude, or Any AI
Add semantic quote search to your AI assistant via MCP. One command setup.
In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which…we are now fighting, that the judges…stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is prohibited in law.100
Loading...