Justice Breyer On Why SCOTUS Judges Have Different Legal Approaches To Big Questions
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 бер 2024
- Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer tells Stephen that one reason he wrote his new book, “Reading The Constitution,” is to convey information about how the Supreme Court justices approach their legal decision-making. Stick around for more with Justice Breyer and look for his book available now!
#Colbert #JusticeStephenBreyer #ReadingTheConstitution #Books #JusticBreyer #SCOTUS
Subscribe To "The Late Show" Channel: bit.ly/ColbertUA-cam
Watch full episodes of "The Late Show": bit.ly/1Puei40
Listen to "The Late Show Pod Show" podcast: link.chtbl.com/Awagtx95?sid=yt
Like "The Late Show" on Facebook: on. 1df139Y
Follow "The Late Show" on X: bit.ly/1dMzZzG
Follow "The Late Show" on Instagram: bit.ly/29wfREj
Watch The Late Show with Stephen Colbert weeknights at 11:35 PM ET/10:35 PM CT. Only on CBS.
---
Stephen Colbert brings his signature satire and comedy to THE LATE SHOW with STEPHEN COLBERT, the #1 show in late night, where he talks with an eclectic mix of guests about what is new and relevant in the worlds of politics, entertainment, business, music, technology and more. Featuring bandleader Louis Cato and “THE LATE SHOW band,” the Peabody Award-winning and Emmy Award-nominated show is broadcast from the historic Ed Sullivan Theater. Stephen Colbert took over as host, executive producer and writer of THE LATE SHOW on Sept. 8, 2015. - Розваги
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'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
My guess/hope is that maybe Stephen was hoping he could get something out of him once he was on.
@@Apropoetic At least he tried.
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
"Really what I'm doing is avoiding the question." Well, at least that was honest.
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
Odd 'loyalty to the office', as he sits on the sideline and watches that office be destroyed from within.
Wow, he's just as spineless as I thought.
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
I lost so much respect for Breyer during his last appearance on this show. Screw his book.
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.
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"
Thank you so much for having Justice Breyer on your show! ❤❤❤
That man was there to sell books and NOTHING ELSE.
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.
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 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...
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 👎
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.
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.
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?
Guy, basically says, “buy my book”…
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?
Well that was unsatisfying
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.
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.
Their cult is more important to them than this country. Don’t act like they’re making honest decisions.
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.
It's disappointing, yet an incisive illustration of the character of these massive Floating Egos.
@@michael1345 La La Land
If avoid all relevent questions in his book too, it must be a great read!!!
Wow..... thank god i live in canada ...
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.
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
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 😂
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
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.
Why didn't he bring Along his Friend Clarence T...
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.
Imagine paying six figures to learn about law from this guy. He doesn't have the courage to say anything of use.
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.
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.
The epitome of prevarication.
WE THE PEOPLE!!
Got absolutely nothing out of that
That was excruciating .
If you agree that the SCOTUS is broken, then please vote blue for the next ten years 💙🗽⚖️🇺🇸💕
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."
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.
Way to not answer any of the damn questions… I swear all these people are hacks
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.
Impeach the whole court
A worthless interview, why Even bother having him on?
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.
So he can’t offer his opinion on the first 2 questions? I’ve not learnt much so far.
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
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.
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
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.
Guess there's no reason to read his book if he's not going to tell us the things we want to know.
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!
Just absolutely spineless...
no wonder the Supreme Court sucks.
Not getting those 4 minutes back
How do I request a refund for the 4 minutes of my life I can’t get back?
Wow, he brought study materials with him. Of course he did.
*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 👍👍👍
Justice Stephen Breyer broke out the mini John Stewart Constitution, too 😆😆😆!!
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.
Yeah, that really makes me want to buy your book. The court is a joke and this is just another of their clowns.
Amazing that he came on.
I forgot. Don't buy his goddamn book.
We are lost without him.
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 “
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.
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.
What a waste of time, he can't answer the most crucial questions!
He brought his homework with him!
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.
Did not like him avoiding questions. Just saying
I am going to go with that Justice Breyer would prefer not to have trumps goons come after him and his family.
Here's my new book. No further 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?
For a guy whose job it was to issue lots of opinions, he sure didn’t seem to have any.
Im glad he's retired!!!
I see why he was in the supreme court. He's just as useless as the rest of them
If his book is anything like his interview, I expect it’s just 300 blank pages
Readers should take his book i
n the same way as he took the questions.
Wait, who replaced this guy so he could get a part time job, while RBG fought for sanity till she dropped dead?
Well that was a waste of everyone’s time
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.
That was anything but inspiring or educational.
Huh?
1:46 And now I have a book to read...
Unpopular opinion maybe, but I like Breyer 🤗🤗🤗
I TRULY BELIEVE THAT IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO QUALIFY FOR SUPREME COURT PLACEMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCTORATE IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND MUST PASS A VETTING PROCESS BY A NON PARTISAN PANEL TO INSURE THAT ALL BIASES INCLUDING RELIGIOUS AND LOBBYING FROM CORPORATE OR WEALTHY SPONSORS ARE FLESHED OUT BEFORE BEING SEATED ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND FOR LIFE {¿}
So, a basic line of questioning should be: are you a member of the Federalist Society? Have you attended special retreats sponsored by the Heritage foundation or its donors?
There should also be clear rules for behavior and there should be oversight. The rules on potential conflicts of interest should be especially strict. Not just on accepting gifts, when to recuse should also be regulated. Cases in which family or friends are involved or implicated are a clear example of where a judge should have to recuse themselves.
:) Sry, no like because "ALL CAPS" - But other than that, I completely agree!
@@dayegilharno4988 it's not an anger thing it's a getting a response thing and hopefully that will start a dialogue ¿
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.
@@xtopheralanfoster3964
Okay, interview segment #2 in which Justice Breyer has made mouth noises without saying anything. Let's see if we can go for #3...
What an amazingly non interview.