What do we know about how each of these people interpret the constitution?
Ballotpedia has a good rundown of their philosophies - click here to get to it.
From most to least conservative
- Clarence Thomas – staunch originalist, not swayed by precedent, original intent, asks what the framers sought to achieve
- Samuel Alito – pragmatism, stability, respect prior decisions, textualism is most important, but legislative history provides context.
- Antonin Scalia - original public meaning, textualist, the specific legal tradition flowing from the text, text and tradition, rejects reliance on legislative history or legislative intent. Plain original meaning of constitutional text
- John Roberts – court should generally defer to Congress and state legislatures, limited institutional role of the court, purposivism – judges should try to discern Congress’s broader purposes.
- Anthony Kennedy – rejects originalism, prioritizes individual liberty and autonomy, moral reading of the constitution, transcends text and tradition, judges should determine whether government’s actions prevent individual development, etc.., takes into account social science scholarship, trends in public opinion and foreign practices,
- Stephen Breyer – living constitutionalism, interprets the constitution in light of its text, purposes and our whole experience, the constitution was written to be adapted to changing circumstances, reads the constitution in service of its reason and spirit. Looks to legislative records and history, democratic pragmatism
- Elena Kagan: does not believe the Constitution can be interpreted by the original intent of its framers, the constitution is an evolving document,
- Sonia Sotomayor: living constitution, has a close regard for precedence,
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg: believes in the Living Constitution, a form of jurisprudence that believes the United States Constitution is a document that adapts to the times, taking on different meanings depending on when it is interpreted.
