Justice Breyer: SCOTUS Struggles With Technology, Must Adapt to Facebook World
- Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:40am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Don’t expect a Facebook friend request from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer any time soon.
The 72-year-old justice said in a speech at Vanderbilt Law School on Tuesday that he was perplexed when he recently saw the film “The Social Network” about the origins of Facebook.
But Breyer said the film illustrates his argument that modern conditions — like the development of the social-networking site — should inform justices when interpreting a Constitution written in the 18th century.
“If I’m applying the First Amendment, I have to apply it to a world where there’s an Internet, and there’s Facebook, and there are movies like … ‘The Social Network,‘ which I couldn’t even understand,” he said.
Breyer said of the high court: “It’s quite clear, we don’t have a Facebook page.”
Although Breyer was making a point about judicial philosophy, he also touched on the court’s sometimes limited grasp of technological developments. For example, Chief Justice John Roberts in a public employee privacy case before the court earlier this year tried to figure out the role of a text-messaging service in enabling an exchange between two people.
“I thought, you know, you push a button; it goes right to the other thing,” Roberts said. Responded Justice Antonin Scalia: “You mean it doesn’t go right to the other thing?”
And in a recent case dealing with a California law regulating the sale or rental of violent video games to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy pressed a skeptical state lawyer on whether the v-chip blocking device, rather than a state law, could be used to keep children away from the games.
“V-chips won’t work?” Kennedy asked, before the lawyer politely explained they are limited to television programming.
Breyer was in Nashville to speak to students, teach a class and promote his new book “Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View.”
Breyer, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994, said his views contrast with originalist members like Scalia, whose approach focuses on giving a fair reading to the words of the Constitution as they were meant when they were written.
Scalia and Breyer sparred over their philosophical differences in a joint appearance at the Texas Tech University Law School last week. Scalia, who was appointed in 1986 by Republican President Ronald Reagan, called the writing of the Constitution “providential.”
Breyer said he disagrees with those who argue that originalism is “a good system because it will keep the subjective impulses of the judge under control.”
“If you want to have history solve everything, let’s get nine historians and not nine judges,” Breyer said. “And you’ll discover that the nine historians are fighting about the various points on which these cases turn anyway.” ___
Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report from Washington.
Comments (38)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 700 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 537 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 357 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 274 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
bets
Posted on November 19, 2010 at 10:41amGood Lord! Stay out of the weeds people!! Spoken written on what ever method is covered under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. If you have children BE A PARENT if you want your kid to watch play say or what ever ok If you do not ok. Government should stay the hell out of it. If your kid is being a royal pain to some other kid BE A PARENT PUT YOUR KID IN CHECK. If you are a parent and your kid is being abused BE A PARENT TEACH THEM TO FIGHT. Then go to the other kid’s parents and PUT THEM IN CHECK IF NEED BE. Remember when this stuff was written you could duel with your apponent. People where allowed to BE PARENTS HELLO and people where allowed to DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THIER FAMILIES AND PROPERTY. With having RIGHTS you also have a thing called RESPONSIBILITY and another thing called DUTY. Facebook should keep records of those that post and where the post from if another person is being abused by that person HELLO GIVE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THAT PERSON. That is called RESPONSIBILTY AND DUTY. On the part of Facebook. Then the person being an idiot knows that the other person that he is being an idiot too will have right duty and responsibility to deal with them. Being responsable is being a good citizen knowing your duty and respecting the right of others to do the same. Yes belief in Natural Rights Natures God and Devine Provedence plays a great roll in this idea…“do unto others as you would have them do unto you” No one man is better than another man in the sight of God. God did not make us to be doormats. The first commandment deals with us and God the rest is how we should deal with eachother. Rights to our thoughts property family body and respect for others.
Report Post »FreedomIQ
Posted on November 18, 2010 at 5:04amHe needs to retire and Judge Andrew Nipolitano needs to be nominated to the high court!
He would be the first justice in our lifetimes who actually respects the Constitution and Bill of Rights! (Gasp!!!!)
Report Post »Pixelguy
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 11:20pmAn amazing story.
Yet, my parents, in their early-mid-‘80’s, have been actively using the Internet since the mid-1990′s and Facebook for the last year or so. They even use video Skype weekly.
How could so many seeming intelligent and MUCH younger SCOTUS justices be so technologically clueless?
Report Post »Bob PA
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 7:39pmJustice Breyer is a pompous ass who likes writing law from the bench. Trying to sell a book he throws his X – Justices whom he disagrees with under the bus.
Report Post »Doc_Slammin
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 4:32pmJustice Breyer,
If you listen to what Justice Scalia was telling you, you would realize you do not need to to understand “The social network” to do your job.
*sigh*
Report Post »Diamondback
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 3:32pmConsidering some of the absolute BS that’s come out of the SCOTUS over the last 234 years, we would probably be better served with historians vs judges. Too many judges trample on the constitution daily in this country and I never realized it until a wayward son gave me the opportunity to watch our so-called “justice system” at work.
Justice my ass! Constitutional protections, my ass! A lot of these judges deserve to be drug from their offices and tarred and feathered on the courthouse lawn!
jmhfo!
Does it sound like I’m pissed? Well, imagine that?
Report Post »Bill Wallace
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 1:39pmBreyer has misplaced priorities. It amazes me that after the education many people have, the word “AMENDMENT” loses its meaning and is instead replaced with “living, breathing document.”
I don‘t agree with all of Scalia’s views, but his is the easiest, simplest way to apply the Constitution. Sure, the fathers had no concept of the internet. But they sure as hell had town criers and placards. First Amendment applied to them, it would apply to the internet.
If you don’t like what the document says, the fathers allowed Amendments. In fact, it was used 27 times already.
It isn’t easy, nor should it be, to change the Constitution.
Report Post »Midwest Belle
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 12:08pmMr Beyer, How in the heck did you get thru life in recent years without knowing SOMETHING about the technologies you complain about? Maybe your STAFF could enlighten you some.
And another thing, THE CONSTITUTION should be read as it’s written, not as you supposed the authors “meant” at the time. APPLY THE LAWS and quit debating!
Maybe it IS time to make the office of SCOTUS Not a lifetime appointment. Maybe there should be an age limit. Maybe that limit needs to be 67 or whatever age the SS retirement is set to. Maybe??
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 12:08pmHe does have one point. He couldn’t understand the movie because it makes no sense, just like facebook.
He’s dead wrong about the constitution however. A judge’s job is to render decisions based on the laws AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. We have a process by which laws can be changed by congress if the need arises. Judges have no powers enumerated to them by the constitution that allow them to use “case law”, “judicial precedent”, or personal opinions of what they think laws SHOULD be in order to decide cases. Those are all just poor excuses for judges exercising personal discretion and personal bias in the place of law.
Report Post »dixiedog
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 11:33amMindful that my logic may be flawed, but I don’t see the issue that Justice Breyer is struggling with. Obviously the Constitution doesn’t address every issue in todays society. Why can’t the Supreme Court just say so? This is not a constitutional issue. Isn’t that what the tenth amendment is all about? If the individual states don’t have laws that prohibiting (name your practice) then it’s legal.
Report Post »T.E.A.PARTNER
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 11:20amAll I can say is: The declaration ” We are endowed by our Creator…” pretty much set the tone and expresses the sentiment that the founders held when drafting the Constitution, despite abuses that have arisen throughout the years. Ancillary writings by the founders bear this out. Those who disagree with ‘providence’ are elevating man above his nature . THAT is why America has been the greatest nation in history. The founders merely obeyed the principles set forth by a God who knew that this nation would be the vehicle of blessing and an example of stability for the entire world.
Report Post »LasVegas Lady
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 2:13pmGreat comment. Thank you.
Report Post »Tradman
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 4:28pmExactly my thoughts T.E.A. Partner. “Creator” meant “God”, not anything else (and certainly not some paganistic deity either). The Constitution and Declaration were inspired by Christian principles, but at the same time did not impose them on the people or nation-to-be
Report Post »justice
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 11:12amThe elite do not get it, or they do and want us dumb people to listen to their crap. they will never understand the common people, that is why we need to keep an eye on them.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 10:49amI’ve looked at words on the internet, and words in a recent book, and words in a book printed in 1883. It seems to me, and call me strange, that they’re all words.
The “tool” of how you communicate speech is irrelevant to the fact that you have the right to freedom of speech. It’s a concept so easy that a child could grasp it.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 10:57amwell put.
Words are our weapons. There is no regulation on them no matter the format.
Report Post »SaintMichael
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 1:22pmSpot on. Words in a published book are exactly what posting on Facebook, or even here are: they are words in the public domain. The fact that people can‘t grasp that the internet is a very public place doesn’t mean we need to prevert the constitution to coddle them.
Report Post »T.E.A.PARTNER
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 10:04amThe ‘historians ’ in our high schools, colleges and universities are the ones who are cranking out these revisionist progressive puke judges in the first place. The founders approved the Constitution , well aware of these future dangers, regardless of future technology. First amendment rights don’t change unless Big government advocates take it away from us with liberal ideology.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 10:47amVery true.
But don’t let the Right off so easily.
I think we have reached a point where ANYONE with power regardless of political affiliation is a potential tyrannical threat. I know that sounds alarmingly alarmist but lets not put our good faith in anyone in elected or appointed office just yet.
We are still very close to the edge. Anything can happen.
Report Post »joseph Fawcett
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 10:00amThe court should not make up laws for this new world but up hold the laws as they are written. There is so much I could say but dont have time right now. May God just give us judges that do right in His eyes first and in ours second.
http://www.josephfawcettart.com western artist
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 10:43amah, where to begin?
god doesn’t assign or give us judges, presidents, senators, representitives or anything. If you wish to believe in a supreme being thats fine but please try to divorce or at least seperate these ideas from your understanding of our precious Constitutional Government. They are a threat to our freedom.
The issue of judges and repression of expression has been around since our founding. Read up on the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams as he tried to surpress all dissent directed towards him but not his opponents (people were actually sent to prison for mocking Adams—sound like a modern day concern? i think so.)
otherwise,
Report Post »keep up the fight my fellow American
Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 18, 2010 at 3:38am“The laws as they are written” wouldn’t give you the right to say whatever you want on the Internet – it’s not speech it’s writing, but it isn’t printed on a press. A certain amount of sensible interpretation of the spirit of the law as applied to a changing world is a good thing. Originalists who hold the letter of the law above the spirit go too far, I’m with “living Constitution“ crowd to the point where they say that movies, and sound recordings and websites are protected by the First Amendment because they would have been if they had existed when it was written.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:53amI lost all respect for Scalia when he called the constitution “providential.”
The Constitution was written by men based on the idea of self-government. If we entrust and attribute the basic concepts and ideas within it to “providence” we surrender our nature rights to freedom and deserve any destruction that comes our way.
Scalia is on my poop list now.
Report Post »T.E.A.PARTNER
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 10:11amButcher, You waded into it, so I, and I’m sure others, would like you to expound on your comment.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 10:26amWell, I think I was pretty clear.
Judging by Scalia’s comment I think he is off his rocker.
There is absolutley nothing divine about the Constitution. Period. No deities came down and wrote it. None of its writers when up on a mountain and was told to by some god to reveal self-governance to a people.
The Constitution is best viewed, and explained as, an article of post-rebellion unification of a free people based on individuality, checks and balances and republican democracy. An utterly revolutionary idea that has NEVER been repeated to this very day in the history of the world.
It is a fine feat of human thought and understanding.
No providence was involved in its creation whatsoever.
Furthermore, if we are now to look at that monumental acheivement by our forebearers 223 years later; and assign divine intervention and inspiration as its cause and genesis; we are dead as a people and a nation.
We might as well be Iran.
Report Post »DagneyT
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:52amBreyer is a leftist loon!
Report Post »SaintMichael
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:51amMost lawyers are idiots. They can’t see the forest for the trees, and many times they don’t even know they are looking at a tree.
But oh no, that will not stop them from issuing rulings that the rest of us have to deal with.
Facebook? Thats easy, its public. Don’t like it, don’t post. It is called assumption of risk that you will embarass yourself, or someone will misue your pictures. See I did learn something in law school afterall.
If the court would stick to the constitution, they would not have these problems. Violent video games – wth is the issue. First amendment again, no reason the court need be involved in ‘regulating’ them beyond preventing sale to minors much like alcohol and cigs.
Report Post »NoName22
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 11:41amIn the case of violent video games……I mean, unless the kid is paying his own rent and bought his own tv and his own console and game and controller…….Nah, it’s unheard of to believe parents could actually tell their kids “no.” Sorry, I had a dream about personal responsibility for a second.
Report Post »Porkins
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:50amBreyer doesn’t know any better. He’s still pissed about when that young whipper-snapper, Samuel Morse, came along and ruin the Pony Express. Now his dime-store novels and penny candy won’t arrive on time, dag-nabit!
Report Post »Bobby P
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:50amEverytime I see the acronym SCOTUS I think of scrotum. I may need to speak to my clergyman.
Report Post »HUGGINGMYBABIES
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:54amI’m right there with you Bobby (waiting outside the confessional)…….
Report Post »john seven eighteen
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:50amI don’t know which is worse – an aging, out-of-touch supreme court who don’t properly apply the law based on twenty-first centurty America, or replacing all of them with a younger generation of justices who are more in touch with society today, but who most likely would lean heavily left, if not applying socialist type opinions. It scares me either way.
Report Post »2
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:57amHere Here, This fool can’t figure out ‘The Social Network,‘ but He can re-write History and change OUR founding because
He thinks He is smarter than Washington, Franklin and Jefferson.
Report Post »seanpatriot
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:42amTime to retire
and FIRST
Report Post »2
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:53amJustice Breyer along with the 3 Ladies are more Progressive than any Court we have ever had.
Don’t listen to this Man.
“Keep the the Words of the Founders”. If you want facebook, Twitter, etc. that’s up to you.
not Obama and His Blackberry.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 11:14amNo, keeping up with all the technology is hard, especially if you aren‘t ’into it’. Now if you want Ginsberg to retire I’ll go with that just because she is a hag.
Report Post »Now that you got a first posting will you stop with the first crap?
Libertarian
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 11:35amCase law and precedent maintains that judges become de facto legislators. The separation of powers are merging.
Breathing v. Intent
Report Post »ozz
Posted on November 19, 2010 at 6:37pmWhat an idiot.
Report Post »