Justice Stephen Breyer may have retired from the Supreme Court, but his insights into constitutional interpretation remain sharp and timely. In a forthcoming episode of "Open to Debate," Breyer discusses a range of topics, from his nomination day to the inner workings of the Court. However, it's his critique of originalism and textualism, outlined in his new book "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism Not Textualism," that is stirring conversation.

Breyer argues that while engaging with judicial philosophies respectfully is noble, it might be misdirected when it comes to originalism. He suggests that originalists are not genuinely open to reconsidering their stance, despite its flaws, and are mainly interested in having their views treated with undue reverence to gain a veneer of credibility.

During the interview, Breyer also revisits a previous debate where even staunch originalists, when pressed, seemed to falter in defending their positions robustly. This, according to Breyer, illustrates that originalism often lacks substantive justification and survives on societal courtesies that mask its deficiencies.

One poignant moment in the discussion highlights a contemporary dilemma. When asked whether they support the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, many originalists hesitantly affirm, revealing a disconnect between public affirmation and private beliefs. This hesitance has sparked accusations of "gutter politics" among those guiding Republican nominees through confirmations, as they dodge firm stances on desegregation.

Breyer’s conversation reveals the broader implications of clinging to originalist views in the modern legal landscape, where such stances can covertly support regressive policies under the guise of legal fidelity. His critique extends to the broader conservative legal movement, which he sees as strategically using originalism to cloak an agenda that looks backward rather than addressing contemporary societal needs.

The full interview promises to delve deeper into these issues, offering a rare glimpse into the mind of a Justice who continues to influence legal thought well into his retirement. The episode airs tomorrow on "Open to Debate," where listeners can expect a thorough examination of why Breyer advocates for a pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation over a strictly originalist one.