What exactly is the problem with what justice breyer said?
Obviously no constitution or body of law exists in a vacuum. Much of our laws, and the ideas in the Constitution, and the traditions of American jurisprudence find their basis in English common law, which further winds it's way back to a number of Roman/Latin and Celtic sources etc.
The problem comes in where we have to ask ourselves, what is Justice Breyer's
intent? And your deliberate effort to be obtuse aside, you know this as well as I do.
Is it truly to adapt or better apply the Constitution in changing times, or to truly new circumstances that did not exist at the time of the Founding? Or is it to upend, subvert, or bypass the Constitution entirely for anything and everything that certain political ideologies find inconvenient?
It risks reductio ad absurdum, if we do not hold certain legal traditions, or philosophies of governance or jurisprudence to be better than others elsewhere in the world, why even have a country? Why even have a United States? But then again, that is exactly what some people want.