Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice
1) An introductory section that presents your thesis and summarizes the main findings of your paper.
2) A brief biographical section (no longer than 2 pages) that discusses your justice’s life and career prior to their appointment to the Court.
3) A section that discusses your justice’s nomination and confirmation. This section should discuss the historical and political context in which the nomination occurred as well as the response to the nomination. In writing this section you should consult the transcripts of the Senate confirmation hearings as well as discussions and analyses of the nomination in major newspapers, magazines, etc. What was the general tone of the hearings? What were the primary issues of interest to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee? How did interest groups respond to the nomination? How many senators voted against your justice’s confirmation and how does this compare to other nominations?
4) A section that discusses your justice’s judicial philosophy. This section should discuss the most important opinions that your justice has authored as a member of the Court and how legal scholars and other commentators have characterized your justice’s jurisprudence. Is your justice generallyconsidered a liberal or a conservative? How would you describe your justice’s approach to important constitutional issues such as freedom of speech, privacy, race, religion, etc.? What other justice(s) does your justice align with most often? Has your justice’s jurisprudence evolved over time?
5) A concluding section in which you compare the statements and perception of your justice at the time of their confirmation with their subsequent record on the Court and draw your own conclusions regarding your justice. Has your justice’s record been consistent with the answers that they gave at their confirmation hearing? Has your justice’s record been consistent with the characterizations of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, interest groups, and the media? What does this say about the value of the confirmation process? Given your justice’s judicial philosophy and record, do you believe that your justice should have been confirmed?