Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, each being highly respected members of the Supreme Court, have their own distinct views in regards to judicial responsibility and the overall role of the Supreme Court itself.
Two justices, while each having the same position of power, bring to the federal bench distinct backgrounds, as well as educations. Such distinctions that shape the ways in which both men look at the greater role of the Court itself. Both of these gentleman, while possessing respective levels of great judicial power, are in their own right distinctive in approach. Leaving to be considered not only the ways in which they view their position in the legal system, but also how they observe the history of the organization since the time of its fruition and its subsequent involvement in the present state of legal affairs and greater discussion occurring in multiple facets of the country.
In an interview conducted at The Federalist Society, Justices' Breyer and Scalia are provided with an environment to engage in healthy discussion having to do with their individual interpretations of both laws, as well as the intent behind them. An issue which Justice Scalia addresses is the notion of a "living constitution". One which would grow with society and form itself to the resulting advancement, in such a way that it would be keeping it from breaking and crumbling all together. Breyer says, while avoiding the classification of 'living' in regards to the constitution, the document "adapts to the circumstance in order to keep the values the same," (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). After which, Justice Scalia responds with a concurrence that, while he too would believe that the constitution should adapt to new occurrences, he would still not give it the term "living" as part of its classification.
While it is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interfere with democracy, it is it's responsibility to keep in mind the notion of not going too far in its interpretations and approaches. As for his view on democracy, in part, Scalia says that, "The majority rules," Adding that, "If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in democracy," (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). Justice Scalia then details his view that the Bill of Rights acts in such a manner, that it imposes limitations on the notion of majority rule, which are in return placed by those in the court system. "Whenever the judges go beyond the meaning understood by the society that voted for those limitations, whenever it goes beyond that original meaning, it is in effect adding to those subjects that are driven off the democratic stage," (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). Breyer's argument of preserving the democratic process is one which many have agreed upon. As is the case with Presidential elections, like Justice Scalia says, the majority does hold a ruling authority and that is in fact part of the democratic process.
To have a court that is comprised of entirely different approaches to things, is quite healthy and good, according to Justice Breyer. "It's just my burden to prove its better than anything else," (Breyer/Scalia, 12/05/06). Scalia places the question forward, for greater discussion and debate, as to whether a lawyer is better qualified to understand the issues at hand, in