Reading the Constitution

Breyer argues against strong Textualism as practiced by the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court today. Instead, he argues for the method of judicial interpretation he used during his tenure on the court, which emphasizes pragmatism and "workability" of the constitution. Instead of strictly adhering to one framework, Breyer thinks judges ought to take into account the perspectives of many frameworks (including originalism and textualism, but also legislative intent, democratic principles, and the practical effects on the legal system/society).

The book includes many case studies which Breyer uses to point out the shortcomings of textualist analysis by showing how such a reading leads to unintuitive, counterproductive, or unworkable outcomes. I found the book useful to expand my understanding of canons of analysis and as a good anti-textualism argument.