I'm Alan Alda and this is clear and vivid conversations about connecting and communicating. We know just looking at history and what those framers, what they thought these words meant, look at it, no problem. But let's look at a little

more. Let's look at what the purpose of this thing was. Let's look at how it fitted in within

the values that that part of the Constitution wished to keep.

Let's look at what the consequences are.

Let's look at how our value systems have changed so that to keep the same values.

Well, you may have to do a little bit of work with those words.

I'm not saying don't look at them. I'm not saying don't use them. I'm just saying

there's a lot more than that involved in a serious constitutional case.

That's former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

He's talking, of course, about how to best interpret the Constitution.

Do you go only by the words themselves and what they meant at the time?

Or do you take a more pragmatic approach that involves looking into the purpose and values expressed in those words?

His no book explains why he comes down on the side of pragmatism.

I talked with him about that and about some of the most controversial decisions the court made during the time he served,

including gun legislation and the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

And we talked about what makes a good judge, and what goes on behind those closed doors when

the justices are deciding a case.

This is so great to be talking with you today because we talk on this podcast a lot about

communication and I don't think that there is anything that impacts our

personal lives more than the communication that goes on between justices on the

Supreme Court and people who wrote the Constitution

over 200 years ago. To understand what they meant when they say stuff is a real important communication question, I think.

...