1d:I[2890,["266","static/chunks/870fdd6f-4fcc92c129a57d11.js","970","static/chunks/970-91a3a37cc668faba.js","857","static/chunks/857-3b2a1421afa266d2.js","965","static/chunks/app/podcasts/episode/%5BpodcastEpisodeGuid%5D/page-e939c6b91b4a25d4.js"],"default"] 1e:I[1318,["266","static/chunks/870fdd6f-4fcc92c129a57d11.js","970","static/chunks/970-91a3a37cc668faba.js","857","static/chunks/857-3b2a1421afa266d2.js","965","static/chunks/app/podcasts/episode/%5BpodcastEpisodeGuid%5D/page-e939c6b91b4a25d4.js"],"default"] 1f:T74b,This week on Trump's Trials, host Scott Detrow is joined by retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

In Breyer's new book Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, Breyer explains why he finds textualism's popularity troublesome.

Textualism is the legal theory that argues the correct way to interpret the Constitution and statutes is to read the text as it was understood at the time the documents were written. Pragmatism, the legal theory Breyer favors, takes current social and political context into consideration when formulating a legal opinion.

In Breyer's view, textualism can weaken the public's faith in the rule of law and poses risks for the health of nation.

However, Breyer was reluctant to comment on cases pending before the court, like former President Donald Trump's claim he is immune from criminal prosecution because of presidential immunity.

Topics include:
- Pragmatism vs. textualism
- Public opinion of the court
- Trump and immunity

Follow the show on Apple Podcasts or Spotify for new episodes each Saturday.

Sign up for sponsor-free episodes and support NPR's political journalism at plu

‌

Episode description

Former Supreme Court Justice Breyer on the dangers of constitutional 'textualism'

Episode description