Yeah this guy's being enigmatic to the point of... beeiiing oblique(?) there's gotta be an actual word for it ? I don't know what it is that he's being?
He is as establishment as one gets, from the era of bipartisanship and whatnot. Biden is like that as well. They are just blinded to what is in front of them and how far right U.S. became, including the judges, who are appointees after all.
It's a bit annoying when respectful people are too respectful to speak, while the lunatics feel compelled to blabber about everything. At the end of the day, it would be good to hear both sides, not just the one willing to speak.
OK. Long retired from the Supreme Court and now able to express his thoughts freely, his Constitutional right to do so but doesn't. He is now just a citizen like the rest of Americans and still acts as if he belongs to the Supremes, can you imagine the bloated egos that now reside in the highest legal office in the land. Very very disappointing on so many levels.
100%. fact he doesn't comment means he thinks SC can make any argument they want and doesn't want to be wrong if he says like a good person should, a president isn't above the law. SC might actually uphold immunity to the President on some bs and he knows it. he didn't say anything but in non answers is alot. @@michael1345
It is revealing in an offensive way that a former justice supports the institution while at the same time, refusing and evading responses to entirely reasonable questions. From this basis, one would reasonably conclude the book is little but a protracted evasion supported by rationalizations.
The arrogance of Breyer was sickening. When he mentioned teaching at Harvard his face lit up in a way what would make any reasonable person slap the grin off his face.
WTF why did he even come on if he can't answer any questions given his EXPERTISE!? wtf is the point of all this. what a waste of absolute time. disband the stupid supreme court, obviously they know nothing.
I hope you're correct. Toobin's book, The Nine, is a better read (I'm sure). In it we learned that O'Conner would have voted for W because she found him cute.@@andrewkohler9730
Thank you for retiring perhaps earlier than you may have wanted -- to save the seat, Mr. Breyer. I wish Ms. Ginsburg had exercised the same pragmatism.
The GOP had promised not to allow even any debate about a replacement and that they would keep the seat open, if necessary, through full 8 years of the expected Hillary Clinton presidency. So, RBG would have had to retire MANY years earlier. And the new Manchin standard is that even a slim Dem majority will not suffice because the likes of Manchin declare that only 'bipartisan' support (i.e. GOP votes) will persuade them to vote for a Dem candidate (no Dem votes for a GOPster are necessary naturally).
@@kingace6186, yes, RBG was phenomenal, but now you have Amy Coney-Barret soiling her memory. If RBG had retired earlier, you could have had a justice who would have voted against abolishing Roe v. Wade.
Expand the Supreme Court...to avoid it being so easily compromised (especially with $money$). Long overdue...growth of national population requires it.
Why even agree to go on a late-night show if all you’re gonna do is push your book and avoid any and all questions that relate to current events? Oh wait, I guess I answered my own question. Jesus, what a disappointing appearance… I really appreciate Colbert at least trying to get him to be more than a self-serving salesman. The show is always about current events, so acting like it’s rude for him to bring them up is supremely stupid.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard more words without actually conveying literally a singular thing. I mean, this was nothing, he literally said nothing. This could have been identical if he had just not shown up and Stephen spoke to an empty chair
It's not about privilege. It's about respecting tradition and historically Supreme Court justices do not speak ill of each other in public. And it makes sense.
@@gmh471”it’s not a outer privilege. It’s about respecting history and tradition.” Being able to cling to history and tradition is a privilege in literally all cases, even one’s in which the history/tradition is not a privileged one.
insane he can't answer that question it's supposed to be his expertise and lifes work. He can't even answer "SHOULD OUR PRESIDENT BE ABLE TO BE A DICTATOR IF THEY CHOSE TO?" WTF?!
there must be some kind of _code of honor_ preventing him from speaking his mind [in public]. if all he came to the studio was for promoting his book than tyvm for nothing. the problem with SCOTUS is bigger than some individual justices who have weird ideas on how to approach cases.
Politics have invaded the justice system. Not a lot of applause for him shows you what the public thinks about the court now. Much too political and accepts large money gifts for favors and we're stuck with them for life. Needs term limits.
I didn't think "what a waste of time" when I saw him interviewed on the PBS NewsHour earlier in the evening. That interview went 10 minutes and perhaps Amna Navaz asked better questions. Go see that one. The gist of Stephen Breyer's philosophy is, "How will my decision affect people?" That's wholly different from originalism and textualism.
I read these comments as i watched... Until now, I had no idea how much nothing could be said in 4 minutes.... Like, damn, I thought outer space contained nothing, but this had even less.
Unless SOMEONE from WITHIN not just the legal system, but judicial system, acknowledges what EVERYONE sees, it MUST BE reformed-best way-ALL judgeships are elected positions w/ term limits, nothing will change
OK. Long retired from the Supreme Court and now able to express his thoughts freely, his Constitutional right to do so but doesn't. He is now just a citizen like the rest of Americans and still acts as if he belongs to the Supremes, can you imagine the bloated egos that now reside in the highest legal office in the land. Very very disappointing on so many levels.
Everyone on the left idolizes RBG for good reason. But it was REALLY bad that she didn't retire when she could have been replaced by another Democrat, like Breyer did.
SPJ are suppose to have opinions and be completely independent of ANYTHING and ANYONE,, but clearly, Breyer was protecting the institution of the Supreme Court and his buddies rather than the US constitution.
Justices are so self important and busy sucking off their own institution that it's barely worth listening to them. He's propagandizing the public on the lie that the court is above politics and objective - a leap he is totally comfortable with. Weighing in on anything that matters is a bridge too far though of course. If he can't say anything here I seriously doubt his book has anything worth reading.
The 14th amendment is as clear as it can be. But we're dealing with a court that wants to parse every syllable and analyze it for any possible unstated supposition.
@melanies.6030 I agree. Allthough English isn't my native language as a Scandinavian, I can't see how it could be any clearer, considering all present counter arguments didn't exist at the time!. When it comes to abortion, they use an obscure 16-17th century law with no regard of present day reality, but when it's the 14th amendment, concerning their cult leader, they do the exact opposite and ignore the actual law text. It's bizarre. The entire American system of politically appointed judges, DA's, sherifs and other law/ judiciary personnel are so obviously wrong. In Europe and other civilized countries, judges are supposed to be 100% objective. Any involvement politically is considered corruption. 🤔
@@lise1255 Well, our judges etc. are expected to be 100% objective in their roles as well. I think there are pros and cons to the partisan labels, since it is unrealistic to expect any of these types of officials to not be products of their own upbringing, background, education, training and culture (as Stephen and Justice Breyer talk about in the second part of the interview). So is it more practical to vote "blindly" where there are no party labels, or let there be party labels to help voters translate their values into electoral outcomes? Otherwise, voters are just using other cues, such as ethnicity, gender, race or incumbency to decide who to vote for.
@melanies.6030 The point is: NONE of these people should be politically appointed or publicly elected. It should be professionals only, that appoints judges and police / judiciary executives. It shouldn't be decided by Mr & Mrs hillbilly or corrupt politicians. Judges, police etc. are the foundation of a well functioning society and should be based ABSOLUTELY ONLY on professional merits and education, NOT by political favors or public popularity. And whatever political standpoint they may have in private, it should absolutely never interfere with their job. Their political standpoints are expected to be kept private in their position of power. If a judge in Europe starts involving himself in political questions, he is immidiately removed from his position. If he posts ANYTHING politically motivated on social media, it's ground for dismissal of most of his/hers decisions, based on possible subjectivity. The SCOTUS is an excellent example of the obvious corruption that a political justice system brings.
@@lise1255 These positions vary from state to state and local jurisdictions. Some appointed, some elected in non-partisan races, some partisan races. As for biases, I think it's ridiculously naive to believe that ANY humans, regardless of their profession or background, whose job it is to appoint people to powerful positions, do not bring their own prejudice, political, views, mores, etc. to the decision making process. It's not realistic of you to assume there is no "unlabeled" partisan-ship occurring anywhere in any human society.
Some justices in the past have been quite outspoken. A former FDR appointee-William O Douglas-lamented about the loss of labour laws and interpretation, iirc back in the 50s or 60s. "He voted to strike down the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia, argued that the environment should be granted legal personhood, tried to declare the Vietnam War unconstitutional because Congress had never declared war, and generally showed an uncompromising defense of individual rights from which even stalwart liberals Brennan and Marshall shied away."
He was a former Supreme court justice and there is a literal mob who tried to sack the Capitol building. If you can't understand why he'd be hesitant to speak as a private citizen, then you probably wouldn't understand his answer.
Be nice......He's a retired supreme court judge and they always take ages to get to the point.......He was probably so excited when he heard he was a guest on Colbert......Give the old man a break.
why even let them come on the show if they're not going to say anything of substance? seriously, dude, you're retired from the bench; what are you so afraid of?
Supreme court judges need term limits. No limit just makes it so whatever party the president is at the time can make it so whatever party is in the white house can tilt things to the way they want, not for what the people want which is what they're supposed to do.
He isn’t funny and proves Supreme Court justices avoid anything they don’t want to answer which is frustrating to the rest of us. Why do people want to interview this guy. He is not forthcoming at all. I wouldn’t read or buy his book it most likely has nothing but double talk. Somewhat like his interview 👎
Breyer has always been an apologist for the worst behavior of SCOTUS, he believes 'respect for the court' by the public is more important than the courts actual integrity and competence. This just magnifies the public's lack of respect that now is shifting into volcanic enmity.
He’s a very lovely man, as I’m sure many supreme court justices are lovely people. But it’s annoying they can’t answer any kind of questions with any kind of nuance to them. Especially after they’ve retired. But retired justices can still sit on federal court benches part time, so maybe there is still the possibility of presiding over a case and you don’t want to comment on it. Kind of a waste of time to interview them tho if they can’t answer anything.
OK. Long retired from the Supreme Court and now able to express his thoughts freely, his Constitutional right to do so but doesn't. He is now just a citizen like the rest of Americans and still acts as if he belongs to the Supremes, can you imagine the bloated egos that now reside in the highest legal office in the land. Very very disappointing on so many levels.
I watched this last night, when it made me so angry that I had to walk away from the internet. I don't want to get on any lists. However, this has to be one of the most frustrating and pointless interviews of all time, and it's certainly not Stephen Colbert's fault. I get that there's likely awkwardness that comes from speaking out against former colleagues, but if there was ever a time for a former SCJ to speak up and express an opinion, it's now. Is he afraid that he won't be invited to movie night? Seriously, I am furious with this privileged old man who has the audacity to suggest that we need to buy his book to learn about how everything is actually totally okay over in SCOTUS world. Americans paid your salary and gave you the honour of deciding the most significant legal opinions in the world. The very least you can do is give us an honest post-mortem without setting so many constraints on your interviewer that you literally can't say anything at all. Shame on you, sir. Your legacy will be one of cowardice.
And that’s one of the problems with this country today… you have people with power with no courage to stand up for what’s right. They keep playing this silent game while Republicans shyt in our country. Shame on you, Bryar.
Well that was a complete waste of time to learn nothing from a former justice.
Because stupid Colbert doesnt know anything.
Yeah this guy's being enigmatic to the point of... beeiiing oblique(?) there's gotta be an actual word for it ? I don't know what it is that he's being?
Be nice.....He's a retired judge and he is trying to be cool and he probably got really excited knowing Colbert wants him on his show.
He is as establishment as one gets, from the era of bipartisanship and whatnot. Biden is like that as well. They are just blinded to what is in front of them and how far right U.S. became, including the judges, who are appointees after all.
Apparently, cowardice is not a deterrent from attaining 'supreme' court status, in THIS country. UGH! 🤔
I won’t be reading his book based on the total waste of time this interview was. He didn’t even move the opinion needle to 1%. Boo!
It's a bit annoying when respectful people are too respectful to speak, while the lunatics feel compelled to blabber about everything. At the end of the day, it would be good to hear both sides, not just the one willing to speak.
indeed
It's called cowardice, not being respectful.
@justinlaite5542 I can understand respecting the institution but these are not normal times and I agree it's cowardly to pretend that it is
OK. Long retired from the Supreme Court and now able to express his thoughts freely, his Constitutional right to do so but doesn't. He is now just a citizen like the rest of Americans and still acts as if he belongs to the Supremes, can you imagine the bloated egos that now reside in the highest legal office in the land. Very very disappointing on so many levels.
100%. fact he doesn't comment means he thinks SC can make any argument they want and doesn't want to be wrong if he says like a good person should, a president isn't above the law. SC might actually uphold immunity to the President on some bs and he knows it. he didn't say anything but in non answers is alot. @@michael1345
This is why the Court is held In such low esteem. What a wasted opportunity.
So even former Supreme Court Justices don't have a backbone
Thank you so much for having Justice Breyer on your show! ❤❤❤
Secret society? Paranoia? You're retired! I think you could weigh in just a tad. Hell, Roberts does it and unfortunately he's not retired.
Odd 'loyalty to the office', as he sits on the sideline and watches that office be destroyed from within.
It is revealing in an offensive way that a former justice supports the institution while at the same time, refusing and evading responses to entirely reasonable questions. From this basis, one would reasonably conclude the book is little but a protracted evasion supported by rationalizations.
That was my thought too.
The arrogance of Breyer was sickening. When he mentioned teaching at Harvard his face lit up in a way what would make any reasonable person slap the grin off his face.
Still waiting on tine donor!!!
Still waiting on that spine donor...
"Really what I'm doing is avoiding the question." Well, at least that was honest.
I'm struggling to understand why a talk show would have a guest on that won't talk.
It was illustrative of the character of these clown justices who plays the United States below their feet
@@EvolutionWendy It did bolster Stephen's decision to declare the SCOTUS unconstitutional.
He did the same thing last time he was on. Refused to engage with anything Stephen asked
@@Apropoetic At least he tried.
Pikachu face when the former justice doesn’t answer questions that literally all recent former/current justices would know better than to answer
WTF why did he even come on if he can't answer any questions given his EXPERTISE!? wtf is the point of all this. what a waste of absolute time. disband the stupid supreme court, obviously they know nothing.
It really shows the better than thou , beyond questioning, STFU attitude of these people who believe they are elevated, BELIEVE they are SUPREME
Stephen declared them unconstitutional for very good reason.
To sell a book. His book.
@@rainmanjr2007 Pretty sure he failed in that, too.
I hope you're correct. Toobin's book, The Nine, is a better read (I'm sure). In it we learned that O'Conner would have voted for W because she found him cute.@@andrewkohler9730
Thank you for retiring perhaps earlier than you may have wanted -- to save the seat, Mr. Breyer.
I wish Ms. Ginsburg had exercised the same pragmatism.
Who replaced him?
RBG > Breyer. Bite me.
Pragmatism doesn't change how inherently broken the judicial system is. You can't blame that on her.
The GOP had promised not to allow even any debate about a replacement and that they would keep the seat open, if necessary, through full 8 years of the expected Hillary Clinton presidency. So, RBG would have had to retire MANY years earlier. And the new Manchin standard is that even a slim Dem majority will not suffice because the likes of Manchin declare that only 'bipartisan' support (i.e. GOP votes) will persuade them to vote for a Dem candidate (no Dem votes for a GOPster are necessary naturally).
@@kingace6186, yes, RBG was phenomenal, but now you have Amy Coney-Barret soiling her memory. If RBG had retired earlier, you could have had a justice who would have voted against abolishing Roe v. Wade.
Once Mitch decided to bury Merrick Garland's confirmation, she couldn't retire. She likely would have, if Hillary had won.
Expand the Supreme Court...to avoid it being so easily compromised (especially with $money$).
Long overdue...growth of national population requires it.
WHO'S money? SOROS , GATES and ZUCKERBERG'S?
Why even agree to go on a late-night show if all you’re gonna do is push your book and avoid any and all questions that relate to current events? Oh wait, I guess I answered my own question. Jesus, what a disappointing appearance… I really appreciate Colbert at least trying to get him to be more than a self-serving salesman. The show is always about current events, so acting like it’s rude for him to bring them up is supremely stupid.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard more words without actually conveying literally a singular thing. I mean, this was nothing, he literally said nothing. This could have been identical if he had just not shown up and Stephen spoke to an empty chair
I lost so much respect for Breyer during his last appearance on this show. Screw his book.
Whata waste. A man of privilege who doesn’t care enough to take a stand
Yes, Breyer thinks the health of the United States is a mental game
It's not about privilege. It's about respecting tradition and historically Supreme Court justices do not speak ill of each other in public. And it makes sense.
@@gmh471that's total bullshit
@@gmh471”it’s not a outer privilege. It’s about respecting history and tradition.” Being able to cling to history and tradition is a privilege in literally all cases, even one’s in which the history/tradition is not a privileged one.
@@pookz3067 Well said! And the history and tradition of the SCOTUS have been vitiated at this point, so no reason to keep up the charade.
He’s a retired Supreme Court judge he literally doesn’t know how to come up with an opinion without considering it for weeks!
Delay tactics it's called favouritism to a traitor
Mental abstraction above practical help for the nation.
Something tells me that he's had time to form opinions on the Reconstruction Era amendments and whether or not presidents are dictators.
@@jimako6 "delay tactics" -like taking a week to count the 2020 ballots ....
@@bademoxy normal procedures
The man is retired and cant answer a single question. Why the heck have him on the show 👎
Wow, he's just as spineless as I thought.
Honestly, this is most lawyers. They go to school for almost a decade to learn how to say absolutely nothing using as many words as possible.
Ours is a time for Lawyers In Love. This was prophesied by Jackson Browne.
That's nonsense. Supreme Court justices have a long history of not bashing even their most hated colleagues.
If avoid all relevent questions in his book too, it must be a great read!!!
Seriously... you're retired and "does the president have complete immunity?" is a difficult question for you...
insane he can't answer that question it's supposed to be his expertise and lifes work. He can't even answer "SHOULD OUR PRESIDENT BE ABLE TO BE A DICTATOR IF THEY CHOSE TO?" WTF?!
there must be some kind of _code of honor_ preventing him from speaking his mind [in public]. if all he came to the studio was for promoting his book than tyvm for nothing. the problem with SCOTUS is bigger than some individual justices who have weird ideas on how to approach cases.
Former justices cannot speak about things that can become legal cases at the Supreme Court. They are bound to the professional discretion.
@@YanBrassard Because we all know that professional discretion has been upheld so well by the same court in resent years.
Politics have invaded the justice system. Not a lot of applause for him shows you what the public thinks about the court now. Much too political and accepts large money gifts for favors and we're stuck with them for life. Needs term limits.
"money for favors"? like Biden family taking 1.5 bILLION from China?
Wow..... thank god i live in canada ...
Guy, basically says, “buy my book”…
If he can’t give an opinion because he wasn’t there when a law was written then he’s in the wrong business.
It's because he's retired and he cares too much about the foundations of our country to dramatize or profit from its problems.
@@tectonicshifting While in the act of promoting a book?
I scrolled down to the comments before watching and am LOVING the shade.
I didn't think "what a waste of time" when I saw him interviewed on the PBS NewsHour earlier in the evening. That interview went 10 minutes and perhaps Amna Navaz asked better questions. Go see that one. The gist of Stephen Breyer's philosophy is, "How will my decision affect people?" That's wholly different from originalism and textualism.
Don’t have him as a guest anymore. All he did was waste 10 minutes and 52 seconds that could have been used by someone who would be engaging.
Way to not answer any of the damn questions… I swear all these people are hacks
There is NO absolute immunity. Cowardly Breyer wasn’t man-enough to state the obvious.
"I won't answer that question because the Supreme Court is going off the rails and I just, I would just cry if I guess wrong"
I’m reading this guy’s cases for law school as we speak.
Does it say anywhere in there that he’s a buffoon?
So sorry 😢 Hope you shared this
i learn nothing from this interview. hope u fare better.
I hope it provides more insight than what he brought to this interview
is his case that he says and given input into absolutely nothing and doesn't given any insight. wtf kind of loser is this guy
So he can’t offer his opinion on the first 2 questions? I’ve not learnt much so far.
I read these comments as i watched... Until now, I had no idea how much nothing could be said in 4 minutes.... Like, damn, I thought outer space contained nothing, but this had even less.
If you agree that the SCOTUS is broken, then please vote blue for the next ten years 💙🗽⚖️🇺🇸💕
Unless SOMEONE from WITHIN not just the legal system, but judicial system, acknowledges what EVERYONE sees, it MUST BE reformed-best way-ALL judgeships are elected positions w/ term limits, nothing will change
Imagine paying six figures to learn about law from this guy. He doesn't have the courage to say anything of use.
A dead ringer for Montgomery Burns. That's pretty much where the similarities end I hope.
You hit the nail on the head......I was trying to figure out who he looked like.......Any 40 and under would have no clue who this chararcter was.
Im 29 and grew up watching the Simpsons 🤷🏾♂️ and yes I too was tryna figure out who he looked like 😂
There are many murder cases on trial right now and this idiot would not commit to saying murder is wrong. That is what I got from his cowardly answer.
Why didn't he bring Along his Friend Clarence T...
OK. Long retired from the Supreme Court and now able to express his thoughts freely, his Constitutional right to do so but doesn't. He is now just a citizen like the rest of Americans and still acts as if he belongs to the Supremes, can you imagine the bloated egos that now reside in the highest legal office in the land. Very very disappointing on so many levels.
Why have him on? All he’s doing is pushing his book. He’s not a judge anymore, he’s a civilian and CAN answer questions.
Everyone on the left idolizes RBG for good reason. But it was REALLY bad that she didn't retire when she could have been replaced by another Democrat, like Breyer did.
It’s time to remove all the scales ⚖️ of equal justice from every single courtroom! It’s meaningless! And he’s so avoiding straight answer’s.
Not getting those 4 minutes back
That was excruciating .
Impeach the whole court
Breyer is my all time favorite justice. I was pretty bummed when he retired, but it was time. I hope he's having a great ol' time teaching.
This is a kinda terrible interview though
SPJ are suppose to have opinions and be completely independent of ANYTHING and ANYONE,, but clearly, Breyer was protecting the institution of the Supreme Court and his buddies rather than the US constitution.
Guess there's no reason to read his book if he's not going to tell us the things we want to know.
A worthless interview, why Even bother having him on?
So explain then why Constitution 14(3) could not be enforced by SCOTUS when the climate is crying out for the rule of the most pragmatic law?
This commenter is my new favorite person.
@@andrewkohler9730 this is much more pragmatic and informative of what goes on with courts: ua-cam.com/video/oeC3ziXNMis/v-deo.htmlsi=slJWCM0X3lUmLQM5
Yeah, that really makes me want to buy your book. The court is a joke and this is just another of their clowns.
Justices are so self important and busy sucking off their own institution that it's barely worth listening to them. He's propagandizing the public on the lie that the court is above politics and objective - a leap he is totally comfortable with. Weighing in on anything that matters is a bridge too far though of course. If he can't say anything here I seriously doubt his book has anything worth reading.
Well that was a waste of everyone’s time
Any law that can be interpreted in opposite directions are wrongfully formulated! Laws should be clear and not up to personal interpretation.
The 14th amendment is as clear as it can be. But we're dealing with a court that wants to parse every syllable and analyze it for any possible unstated supposition.
@melanies.6030 I agree. Allthough English isn't my native language as a Scandinavian, I can't see how it could be any clearer, considering all present counter arguments didn't exist at the time!.
When it comes to abortion, they use an obscure 16-17th century law with no regard of present day reality, but when it's the 14th amendment, concerning their cult leader, they do the exact opposite and ignore the actual law text. It's bizarre. The entire American system of politically appointed judges, DA's, sherifs and other law/ judiciary personnel are so obviously wrong.
In Europe and other civilized countries, judges are supposed to be 100% objective. Any involvement politically is considered corruption. 🤔
@@lise1255 Well, our judges etc. are expected to be 100% objective in their roles as well. I think there are pros and cons to the partisan labels, since it is unrealistic to expect any of these types of officials to not be products of their own upbringing, background, education, training and culture (as Stephen and Justice Breyer talk about in the second part of the interview). So is it more practical to vote "blindly" where there are no party labels, or let there be party labels to help voters translate their values into electoral outcomes? Otherwise, voters are just using other cues, such as ethnicity, gender, race or incumbency to decide who to vote for.
@melanies.6030 The point is: NONE of these people should be politically appointed or publicly elected. It should be professionals only, that appoints judges and police / judiciary executives. It shouldn't be decided by Mr & Mrs hillbilly or corrupt politicians. Judges, police etc. are the foundation of a well functioning society and should be based ABSOLUTELY ONLY on professional merits and education, NOT by political favors or public popularity. And whatever political standpoint they may have in private, it should absolutely never interfere with their job. Their political standpoints are expected to be kept private in their position of power. If a judge in Europe starts involving himself in political questions, he is immidiately removed from his position. If he posts ANYTHING politically motivated on social media, it's ground for dismissal of most of his/hers decisions, based on possible subjectivity. The SCOTUS is an excellent example of the obvious corruption that a political justice system brings.
@@lise1255 These positions vary from state to state and local jurisdictions. Some appointed, some elected in non-partisan races, some partisan races. As for biases, I think it's ridiculously naive to believe that ANY humans, regardless of their profession or background, whose job it is to appoint people to powerful positions, do not bring their own prejudice, political, views, mores, etc. to the decision making process. It's not realistic of you to assume there is no "unlabeled" partisan-ship occurring anywhere in any human society.
Some justices in the past have been quite outspoken. A former FDR appointee-William O Douglas-lamented about the loss of labour laws and interpretation, iirc back in the 50s or 60s.
"He voted to strike down the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia, argued that the environment should be granted legal personhood, tried to declare the Vietnam War unconstitutional because Congress had never declared war, and generally showed an uncompromising defense of individual rights from which even stalwart liberals Brennan and Marshall shied away."
I forgot. Don't buy his goddamn book.
He was a former Supreme court justice and there is a literal mob who tried to sack the Capitol building. If you can't understand why he'd be hesitant to speak as a private citizen, then you probably wouldn't understand his answer.
no wonder the Supreme Court sucks.
Got absolutely nothing out of that
That was horse shit he was trying to shovel at us.
Be nice......He's a retired supreme court judge and they always take ages to get to the point.......He was probably so excited when he heard he was a guest on Colbert......Give the old man a break.
Truly disappointed with x-scotus 🤐. He gave his best answer at 1:03
"It's March and it's cold... hee hee hee"
@@EvolutionWendy no. When Stephen said “RETIRE” the judge said “maybe I should “
Just absolutely spineless...
Im glad he's retired!!!
The epitome of prevarication.
Did not like him avoiding questions. Just saying
How do I request a refund for the 4 minutes of my life I can’t get back?
Well that was useless
WE THE PEOPLE!!
I see why he was in the supreme court. He's just as useless as the rest of them
FFS WHAT did Trump tell him that time by the elevators that made him step back with a sort of frightening shock?! WE NEED TO KNOW!
What a waste of time, he can't answer the most crucial questions!
why even let them come on the show if they're not going to say anything of substance? seriously, dude, you're retired from the bench; what are you so afraid of?
Supreme court judges need term limits. No limit just makes it so whatever party the president is at the time can make it so whatever party is in the white house can tilt things to the way they want, not for what the people want which is what they're supposed to do.
Amazing that he came on.
Wait, who replaced this guy so he could get a part time job, while RBG fought for sanity till she dropped dead?
Unpopular opinion maybe, but I like Breyer 🤗🤗🤗
*I'll tell you who writes a really good cook book Stephen, **_SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS!_*
Clarence Thomas writes Cook the Books and their facts.
@@communitygardener17 👍👍👍
Did we all just sit through four minutes of literally nothing at all?
Stephen should have told Breyer, "Get off my show!"
Glad he was able to get son a cushy job in a nice conservative White Shoe firm. Great timing 😉
Not buying his book.
For a guy whose job it was to issue lots of opinions, he sure didn’t seem to have any.
What an amazingly non interview.
Here's my new book. No further questions.
Justice Stephen Breyer broke out the mini John Stewart Constitution, too 😆😆😆!!
Wow, he brought study materials with him. Of course he did.
Why can't he answer anything? What's he got to lose?
He isn’t funny and proves Supreme Court justices avoid anything they don’t want to answer which is frustrating to the rest of us. Why do people want to interview this guy. He is not forthcoming at all. I wouldn’t read or buy his book it most likely has nothing but double talk. Somewhat like his interview 👎
Breyer has always been an apologist for the worst behavior of SCOTUS, he believes 'respect for the court' by the public is more important than the courts actual integrity and competence. This just magnifies the public's lack of respect that now is shifting into volcanic enmity.
Extremely disappointed in Justice Breyer. He's trying to save the face for the court but no one is buying it, just like his book.
He doesn’t have much life left in him. Be honest and speak the truth. This type of no-balls weakness is why America is on the decline…..
He’s a very lovely man, as I’m sure many supreme court justices are lovely people. But it’s annoying they can’t answer any kind of questions with any kind of nuance to them. Especially after they’ve retired. But retired justices can still sit on federal court benches part time, so maybe there is still the possibility of presiding over a case and you don’t want to comment on it. Kind of a waste of time to interview them tho if they can’t answer anything.
OK. Long retired from the Supreme Court and now able to express his thoughts freely, his Constitutional right to do so but doesn't. He is now just a citizen like the rest of Americans and still acts as if he belongs to the Supremes, can you imagine the bloated egos that now reside in the highest legal office in the land. Very very disappointing on so many levels.
Readers should take his book i
n the same way as he took the questions.
I watched this last night, when it made me so angry that I had to walk away from the internet. I don't want to get on any lists. However, this has to be one of the most frustrating and pointless interviews of all time, and it's certainly not Stephen Colbert's fault. I get that there's likely awkwardness that comes from speaking out against former colleagues, but if there was ever a time for a former SCJ to speak up and express an opinion, it's now. Is he afraid that he won't be invited to movie night? Seriously, I am furious with this privileged old man who has the audacity to suggest that we need to buy his book to learn about how everything is actually totally okay over in SCOTUS world. Americans paid your salary and gave you the honour of deciding the most significant legal opinions in the world. The very least you can do is give us an honest post-mortem without setting so many constraints on your interviewer that you literally can't say anything at all. Shame on you, sir. Your legacy will be one of cowardice.
Avoiding the question does not help.
And that’s one of the problems with this country today… you have people with power with no courage to stand up for what’s right. They keep playing this silent game while Republicans shyt in our country. Shame on you, Bryar.
I hope god can save the USA because people like this in the highest court certainly aren't!