Justice Stephen Breyer on state of the Supreme Court
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 кві 2024
- ABC News’ Devin Dwyer spoke with retired Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on the embattled institution at this critical moment during a historic series of major cases this spring.
---
Subscribe to ABC News on UA-cam: abcnews.visitlink.me/59aJ1G
Watch 24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events on ABC News Live: • LIVE: Latest News Head...
Watch full episodes of World News Tonight with David Muir here: • ABC World News Tonight...
Read ABC News reports online: abcnews.go.com
ABC News Digital is your daily source of breaking national and world news, exclusive interviews and 24/7 live streaming coverage. ABC News is the home to the #1 evening newscast “World News Tonight” with David Muir, “Good Morning America,” “20/20,” “Nightline,” “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, “ABC News Live Prime” with Linsey Davis, plus the daily news podcast “Start Here.”
---
Connect with ABC News on social media:
Facebook: / abcnews
Instagram: / abcnews
TikTok: / abcnews
X: / abc
Threads: www.threads.net/@abcnews
LinkedIn: / abcnews
I move for a vote of no confidence of the Supreme Court's leadership.
Stop enforcing their most extreme rulings.
Trump is immune from prosecution? Okay, cool, go enforce that, Clarence.
Or expand the court.
Or limit the scope of their jurisdiction through the legislature.
Why should this court have jurisdiction over anything related to Trump when they are so clearly in his favor?
Why is this interview so obviously chopped up and edited? Give us the full interview.
What do you expect from leftist trash news?
Impeach the Supreme Court was mentioned twice. Definitely on the table for discussion. 😂 I like this guy. ❤
That's totally unrealistic given the highly polarized congress that will remain so for years. Breyer is living in FantasyLand if he thinks Rs will agree to impeach the corrupt, partisan right-wing justices currently on the court no matter how rogue they get. Why isn't he advocating for term limits, a firm code of ethics, and expanding the court? Those are things we really need.
His mind is so brilliant. You can never catch him. He always asks to answer your own questions
Pick…a…side, judge! So, the country needs to wait 3 to 4 years before the young judges have their act together!? We hire experienced judges and we need to let them fumble around for a few years?! Give me an effing break.
And that's on a hope that they do!
I mean, they shot down all of the election challenges in 2020, but now they are considering immunity four years later?
Sounds like a regression to me!
I couldn't be more disgusted with Justice Breyer for his laissez faire attitude here and his superficial, out-of-touch comments about the current SC majority. The SC is filled with corrupt, partisan and increasingly rogue justices.
Pure wisdom
They are not textualists. They want to write law.
Terrible interview and Breyer should stop being coy and playing stupid.
💯, and that bookplug.🤣
So careful with his words. But, being elusive for elusive's sake gets tiresome.
"There is a lot to learn before you become too depressed" Yep that's where the country is. We are in too much hurry to make a decision not thinking about the later ramifications. I'd explain this by using a parenting example. If your young child does something that makes you very angry (pick the issue) if you hit him/her you are almost guaranteed for them to stop their bad behavior initially. This is great for the short term but what effect does that have long term on this child? Hitting someone is ok? Letting anger rule your decisions is not a good thing.
Type less, say more.🫡🫶
@@fuzzyspackage Comment less read and comprehend more. SAEPH
I uave just read an article in financial review
Judge breyer is mentioned
Im a texualist
Ordinary words with plain clear meaning so everyone understands were they stand and I to comply with society standards
Our constitution needs
Now that needs to be worked on
🇦🇺
Its embarrassing the way we have dealt with the aboriginals
He is here to sell his book. His opinion doesn't count.
finally someone said it lol
What a bad interview! It just sounded like the interviewer just wanted to talk.
Unaccountable and unelected, why should i respect an institution that defended slavery and segregation?
DJT talks to us like if we were babies .
He repeats the same thing to us over & over again like if we don't understand him .
It is humiliating. 😊
Fluff.
Justice Thomas is extreme when from Justice Scalia opinion. What makes him extreme is his jurisprudence doesn’t believe in state decisis at all where as most other justices like to leave bad judgements left alone if people built their life around such decision. One exception Justice Scalia made was roe not because he didn’t think it’s bad judgement but he thought it was unworkable. It called for undue burden and he thought that put him in the straight line as policy maker. .
Leave roe to the states. If you must have the justices involved then just say as a min it's allowed up to 2 months, now states can exceed that. Only medical reasons should be allowed after 4 mos.
I'm deeply disappointed in the kind of blase, superficial responses Breyer gives here. Asked about the mood of the court, he says he had a "pleasant lunch...it's always been pleasant". I know the interview must have been edited somewhat, but his answers come across as unconcerned and incredibly shallow. His advice is to "slow down"??? The SC justices will "find it doesn't work" to use a textualist or literalist approach? Is he that blind to the way the majority on the court has used a newer, more cynical and ahistorical approach to achieve the most dramatic shifts in breaking precedent or setting a course totally against both the Constitution and current public opinion? We have arrogant and corrupt justices like Alito and Thomas who act totally dismissive of criticism and intent upon forcefully legislating rather than applying the Constitution to cases before them, who actively seek to aid trump as a lawless and traitorous figure undermining our democracy. Confronted with serious allegations of misconduct by current justices, Breyer only says there's just one way of punishing them and that's impeachment. He says nothing about the lack of any firm code of ethics applied to these justices, a code the majority has shown they have no interest in having since they want to be free of constraints and not be challenged for corruption.
This is a shockingly bland set of responses at a time when the SC contains right-wing ideologues gone rogue, trying to legislate from the bench and using the most dishonest, corrupt means to achieve their social agenda. I had respect for Justice Breyer in the past, but this casts him as seriously out of touch or in denial about how serious the problems are with this current SC. He can't think that writing a book is going to have any impact on this court majority or be read by anyone who can affect the court. What a sad figure to have sitting there with this ho-hum attitude at a time of great peril in our country.
Disappointing that Beyer is so politically correct that he won’t speak the truth
オッペンハイマーを観てテーマである俺が死ぬな殺すなと言う意味を定義して下さい。そして俺は世界の中心を自分の幸せの為に辞任します。
Blah blah blah make a committed statement
Bravo
Hes just trying to sell his book lol
HEADLINE: Constitutional law scholar lays out the Supreme Court’s rule of lawlessness (OPINION)
QUOTE: Listening to the oral argument in the Trump immunity case last week, I could not help but think how surreal the conservative justices were acting. It felt like they were going out of their way to ignore our immediate and pressing crisis involving an ex-president who tried to resist the peaceful transfer of power with violence and lies.
The male conservatives also pretended that *every potential future issue involving presidential immunity* had to be worked out in this case, which is exactly the opposite position of the “good for one day” language and theme of Bush v. Gore. The only similarities between the two cases are Republicans looking out for Republicans, which is exactly what one would expect from a highly partisan *ultimate veto council* staffed with a majority of Republicans.
The disaster that was the Trump v. United States oral argument reminded me of how little the Roberts court has actually cared about rule of law values and legal transparency during its 18-year run. Leaving aside the overturning or narrowing of numerous landmark cases, from abortion to affirmative action to the free exercise of religion, the Roberts court has consistently, in the court's most important and publicized opinions, engaged in subterfuge, sleight of hand and even outright lying.
In this post, I discuss landmark cases involving affirmative action, health care, voting rights, separation of church and state and the Second Amendment to show, not that I disagree with the results (I do), but instead to demonstrate that no matter what side of the issues you may favor in these country-defining cases, the Roberts court has resolved these questions in a lawless manner because of reliance on demonstrably false facts and obviously misleading descriptions of prior rulings and other legal materials.
In short, the Roberts court has acted lawlessly from the beginning. (... article continues...)
-----------
The corrupt current court should be impeached and all Trump-appointed justices should be removed.