Editing Stephen Breyer (section)

===Other books===
In 2010, Breyer published a second book, ''Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View''.<ref>({{ISBN|978-0307269911}}); {{Cite news |last=Fontana |first=David |date=October 3, 2005 |title=Stephen Breyer's 'Making Democracy Work', reviewed by David Fontana |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100103520.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101106030604/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100103520.html |archive-date=November 6, 2010 |access-date=October 8, 2010 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> In it, he argues that judges have six tools they can use to determine a legal provision's proper meaning: (1) its text; (2) its historical context; (3) [[precedent]]; (4) tradition; (5) its purpose; and (6) the consequences of potential interpretations.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Breyer |first=Stephen |title=Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View |year=2010 |page=74}}</ref> [[Textualists]], like [[Scalia]], only feel comfortable using the first four of these tools; while pragmatists, like Breyer, believe that "purpose" and "consequences" are ''particularly'' important interpretative tools.<ref>{{Cite AV media |url=https://fedsoc.org/commentary/videos/a-conversation-on-the-constitution-with-supreme-court-justices-stephen-breyer-and-antonin-scalia-event-audio |title=A conversation on the constitution: perspectives from Active Liberty and A Matter of Interpretation |date=December 5, 2006 |type=Video |publisher=The American Constitution Society; The Federalist Society |place=Capital Hilton Ballroom – Washington, D.C. |people=Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Jan Crawford Greenburg (moderator)}}</ref>

Breyer cites several watershed moments in Supreme Court history to show why the consequences of a particular ruling should always be in a judge's mind. He notes that [[President Jackson]] ignored the Court's ruling in ''[[Worcester v. Georgia]]'', which led to the [[Trail of Tears]] and severely weakened the Court's authority.<ref name="Shesol">{{Cite news |last=Shesol |first=Jeff |date=September 17, 2010 |title=Evolving Circumstances, Enduring Values |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/books/review/Shesol-t.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171226182345/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/books/review/Shesol-t.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=0 |archive-date=December 26, 2017 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> He also cites the ''[[Dred Scott]]'' decision, an important precursor to the [[American Civil War]].<ref name="Shesol" /> When the Court ignores the consequences of its decisions, Breyer argues, it can lead to devastating and destabilizing outcomes.<ref name="Shesol" />

In 2015, Breyer released a third book, ''The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities'', examining the interplay between U.S. and international law and how the realities of a globalized world need to be considered in U.S. cases.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Witt |first=John Fabian |date=September 14, 2015 |title=Stephen Breyer's 'The Court and the World' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/books/review/stephen-breyers-the-court-and-the-world.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160825072412/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/books/review/stephen-breyers-the-court-and-the-world.html |archive-date=August 25, 2016 |access-date=February 18, 2017 |work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities |url=http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/253016/the-court-and-the-world-by-stephen-breyer/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151118112408/http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/253016/the-court-and-the-world-by-stephen-breyer/ |archive-date=November 18, 2015 |access-date=October 27, 2015 |publisher=Penguin Random House}}</ref>

On March 26, 2024, Breyer released a fourth book, ''Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism''. In an interview about the book, he said that textualism, a judicial philosophy conservative justices favor, "will not help achieve the goals of those who write statutes or those who wrote and adopted the Constitution" and is doomed to fail.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/26/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-interview-00148948|title=A Supreme Court Justice Sounds a Warning|website=Politico|date=March 26, 2024|access-date=March 27, 2024}}</ref>