The ex-Supreme Court judge said on weeklywakeup News’ “Meet the Press” that he would be surprised if a justice was behind the well-known Dobbs leak.
Breyer: Dobbs Ruling Could Face Reversal
Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said it’s “possible” that in the future, the Supreme Court might change its mind about its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health from 2022, which reversed the ruling of Roe v. Wade.
“But who knows?” Breyer said to Kristen Welker, the moderator on weeklywakeup News’ “Meet the Press.”
The old judge also talked about how the news about the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked before the official announcement, which happened a few weeks earlier. They said it was unfortunate.
Breyer mentioned that he had a “theory” about who leaked the information, but he didn’t want to share any names. He explained that everyone has their own ideas, but he preferred not to discuss it further.
He said he would be very surprised if he became a judge.
Breyer avoided answering questions about some cases this year that involve Donald Trump, the former president.
When asked about a case involving former President Trump’s claim that he shouldn’t be prosecuted for his actions related to the 2020 election, Justice Breyer declined to comment, saying he I didn’t know enough to decide.
“Surprisingly, even saying the first thing that comes to mind can cause errors, and it happens frequently.” I’m not avoiding the question by saying I won’t answer it.”
Also Read: Police: No Evidence Of Foul Play In Nashville River Death
Even though Breyer was chosen by President Bill Clinton and served on the court from 1994 to 2022, he’s familiar with reviewing cases during presidential election years that could greatly affect the election’s result.
In 2000, Breyer looked at the Bush v. Gore case. He agreed with most of the judges, saying the way Florida was counting votes for the president was against the rules. However, he disagreed when most judges said Florida couldn’t do a fair vote recount in time.
Breyer informed Welker, “That matter should not have been addressed.” “I had the same thought regarding Bush vs. Gore.”
He said, “At first, I thought they shouldn’t have chosen that opinion. But now, after thinking about it a lot, I believe they should decide differently.”
Breyer talked to weeklywakeup News’ “Meet the Press” before his book “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism” came out. In the book, he explains why he doesn’t support the idea of interpreting the Constitution strictly based on its original meaning.
Breyer said that textualism is appealing because it’s straightforward and easy to understand.
“Just read this. He said you’ll easily find the answer.
“You might think it’s good, but I don’t. I’ve spent a year and a half explaining why I think it doesn’t work well.”
Follow my Twitter Account:Â Weekly Wakeup
