Justice Breyer's descent into madness is complete.

Ok, ok. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He's probably just a power-mad totalitarian in the midst of rebellion against reality.

Breyer's method

Justice Stephen G. Breyer says he frequently makes decisions about a law's constitutionality by considering its purposes and consequences, which puts him at odds with fellow justices who try to adhere strictly to the language of the Constitution.

Justice Breyer, on the court since 1994, didn't single out any particular justice or discuss his new colleagues, John G. Roberts Jr.and Samuel A. Alito Jr., during his speech Tuesday at the University of Chicago Law School.

[Kentucky.com has this additional piece from the AP at this point in the article:

He said, however, that he hadn't detected any split on the high court along Republican and Democratic ideological lines.

"I haven't seen that kind of politics in the Supreme Court. Zero. It doesn't exist," he said.]

Justice Breyer talked about other differences in how the justices make decisions, saying they can consult six basic criteria in assessing a law: the language of the law, the history of the text, tradition behind the text, precedents, the purpose of the law and the consequences of letting the law stand or striking it down.

"I tend to emphasize purpose and consequences," said Justice Breyer, who was nominated for the high court by President Clinton. "Others emphasize language, a more literal reading of the text, history and tradition -- believing that those help you reach a more objective answer."
(Thanks to The Washington Times for the heads up.)