I appreciate Justice Breyer's candor. A trait I admire is he is not afraid to say "I'm not going to answer that question," rather than dissemble and lie. I wish he hadn't retired - he's sharp as a tack, and possesses wisdom the current Court seems to lack.
He retired at the right time. He had his time on the court and didn't want to be like RBG holding out to so long she was replaced by someone with the opposite values. Ketanji Brown Jackson is also an sharp and excellent jurist and look to be doing well to live up to Justice Breyer legacy.
The current court seems to lack wisdom because you FEEL strongly about how the court has ruled. You didn't listen to this interview, every one of the decisions is carefully thought out and scrutinized.
@@timfuscaldo3024 The court didn't radically change in its methodology because Breyer stepped down. He worked with the majority of those judges for decades. There's no reason to assume they've gone to a policy of rushing through decisions, and they haven't
agree but He also had to deal with the legacy that RBG's death left us with. what the gop did to take advantage of her death. as well as what was done with the death that left us with kavanaugh again because of what the gop did. He chose to leave during the beginning of Bidens term to avoid the same possibility happening again. to avoid another conservitive federalist judge being forced down our throats.
Now we can hear his thinking on matters of the law instead of dying in office like his predecessors. He is a brilliant man and jurist. We the public get to read his book and hear his interviews. He can speak more freely now that he has retired from the Supreme Court.
@@rfresa Now we need at least four more successors to replace the three Trump appointees for lack of qualifications, Thomas and Alito for corruption, and Roberts for spinelessness, for allowing the foxes in the henhouse to go nuts.
Welker asked the right questions. She’s just not clever enough to ask them in a way that she got more insightful answers. If she asked questions that didn’t cover current cases in front of the court, Breyer gave very interesting answers. Ask the same topic but use past cases or hypothetical ones. Even then, Breyer is no dummy and will be careful in his answers.
Precisely- which I felt Breyer is guilty of in this case by abstaining from ANY sort of answer (or even a clue) signaling his issue with at LEAST TWO corrupt judges.
This interview was performed by an activist reporter and News organization! Kudos to Justice Breyer for refusing to take the bait(s) and step in the mire!! Regardless, this reporter, though only doing her job for FAKE News/NBC, is so irritating!
Brilliant people such as myself have been saying for twenty years that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be a disaster for the GOP. How right we were!
@@Kermit_T_Frog You are confused ANY Supreme Court decision is subject to being overturned. And Roe v, Wade, which was a particularly poorly reasoned decision, was vulnerable from the day it was decided.
@@Kermit_T_Frog Do a little research into the history of First Amendment law. (I especially recommend "The People's Darling Privilege: Struggles for Free Speech in American History", by Michael Kent Curtis and "Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1870-1920", by David Rabban.) And then ask yourself where we would be if First Amendment law had not started to radically change about one hundred years ago. Regards.
Personhood, while we're at it; because no other artificial entity like a corporation should have rights that occlude individual human and civil rights. There is no democracy when a $ = a vote. Demos is The People, not the currency, not the corporation protected from having to be transparent and honest.
18:15 Justice Breyer may be too optimistic to think we still have or will have rule of law when capture of SCOTUS has caused the lowest approval rating in history.
Seems quite disingenuous of Mr. Breyer to say that like his wife, Ginni Thomas is an independent woman, as if Clarence doesn't know everything she did to plan and try to execute the insurrection. He really isn't giving much hope when he thinks that SCOTUS is doing the people's work - NOT
So, what do we collectively do? I think we pressure our congress people to push the Executive for expanding the court by 4 or 5 more justices. 3 liberal and one or two moderates.
Oh my God-YES! This interview frustrated me SO much!! Sir! Now is not the time to act smart and be cagey!! And the part where he implies that it is basically “ok” for Thomas no to recuse himself…UGH.
@@oldnepalihippie YES!!! This!!! Want to remove the corruption, publicize the court hearings - I don't think it's any different that other court session - only that they have a higher profile.
@@lisakeane4386Breyer should take acting classes if he wants to pull that one off convincingly. But I don't think he cares, he's that arrogant about his lack of transparency. Of all the norms broken of late, he's gonna focus on that one norm? spill the beans m f e r
Around 1:05:00, Justice Breyer basically admits that it is only the vanity of judges that prevents cameras in the courts. Your vanity/ego doesn't supersede our right to know what you're doing with our money.
And repeating the same mistake of politely withdrawing from every question of any real import. This interview was worthy of a C or D segment of a personality show, not news.
“But let me ask one more question..” 😂 I do think Maddow could keep up a bit more- but Breyer is pretty darn smart and i don’t think he’d be answering questions any more than he did if faced with a more worthy adversary.
there is NO difficulty with the abortion decision issue, NO government has the right to take upon a woman's health care choice based on a religious ideology. According to the Bible, life does not begin until the first breath which is after birth. No difficulty at all in a decision. Government has overreached their control and power over individual freedom.
Textualism and Originalism treat the Constitution as essentially a historical, dead document. I believe the Framers meant it to be a dynamic, living document that will adapt as knowledge increases.
As the justice said, encompassing our basic values and those we are working toward, pliable and applied in a modern context. As I have always understood it, A Living Document.
I say this as one who tends to be an Institutionalist, I wish Breyer would understand that there are corrupt extremist rightwingers who are seeking to use our institutions against them. We cannot behave normally when the institutions are under attack. He should take a page from his correct approach of pragmatism and speak up in these abnormal times.
@@bardsamok9221 This interview actually led me to trust him far less and be more wary of ALL the justices, whether I like them or not. Now IS the time to stand up. There are no other SCOTUS retirees to call out shenanigans, much less institutional crimes. No huddling when the very basis of our country is at stake. This isn't a social club with secret rites. It seems another case of privilege blinding. By not speaking out, he's, at best, submitting to being used by the cadre of authoritarians who count on our tradition and trust that "Everything's fine; everything's just fine," as the gap in our defenses. He presents himself as a Martin Niemöller. Must be nice not to belong to any marginalized categories who need worry.
@@bardsamok9221 How did you arrive at your conclusion "of course he understands?" Did he state that he understands the corrupt rightwing extremists pose an risk to SCOTUS? Or are you just guessing?
After listening to this interview, it seems to me that a Judge should be well versed in History. Then the Judge can understand the context of the law when it was written. They should understand the constitution was not written for everyone before. The Judge with good insight over time can make better decisions as we progress as a people.
Great interview. I have one major criticism of Breyer though; when asked about the gifts and transparency his answer was full of obfuscation and gaslighting. Even if the 7 volumes of ethics don't spell out that you shouldn't accept 250K RVs as gifts I think most logical people would conclude it is an ethical issue and not reporting it is against the "rules".
I respect justice Breyer, but it somewhat disturbs me that he did not give his opinion as a now private citizen about the most burning issues at the present. He should have commented about J6 and our right to know about presidential immunity issue. You have only brilliant mind if you make your reasoning of burning issues known. Brilliant mind gets lost if it is kept only in one head.
I'm from Trenton NJ. 2 SC Justices grew up where I'm from Alito and Scalia. I know how they will vote every time. They are both from the part of Trenton where my mother taught for 30 years..
In between lines all I heard from Breyer is everything is common sense and indirectly SCOTUS has ruptured and not aware of history and current stand by SCOTUS is bad approach and should change course and has loss the SCOTUS value. My apology if I heard his lines wrongly and perhaps he should said more directly instead of putting words in his mouth.
I felt like Welker’s questions were a little too direct and obvious at times here. This represents a missed opportunity, given how rare it is to have such a large amount of time with a SC Justice.
I found this interview upsetting because he felt like he couldn't answer any of the very relevant and important questions. I think he still thinks he's a judge. And can't have his own opinion or ideas expressed.
He is still part of the institution of the Supreme Court. If he was to assert an opinion, people would use his words and run with it. Being measured in your words is an amazing attribute in a judge, and honestly a person. I think it's good that he doesn't say anything too controversial to let the actions of the current court stand and force those currently on the bench to explain their decisions in their written opinion.
As much as I would like to hear his perspective, he is in the right not to express an opinion in these cases because it can be taken out of context or someone may mince his words.
I agree with you. He's spineless. Why agree to an interview when you can't answer any questions? If he's a judge, and he feels like it's not appropriate to talk about cases, then why be on television? Ridiculous.
This is why I've always admired Justice Breyer. He's disciplined and unable to be swayed, even under the scrutiny of serious questioning. Throughout his time on the Supreme Court, he could be trusted with his deliberations because he was always aware of the big picture and what potential effects it would have in the future. Great interview!
The applause goes away until you rewrite a precedent that's been standing for 50 years. Then you get half the applause back. Judges shouldn't rewrite laws by judicial review
There doesn't have to be a law on abortion. Canada has no law. Canada treats abortion the same as any other medical procedure. You want a law? Pass a law that medical practitioners are the people who make medical decisions in consultation with their patients.
So you and your mob can attempt to take his words and run with them? Do you think he really has time to go through and entire decision much less many of them in a short interview?
To my lawyer’s ears, he is commenting loudly and clearly-the Supremes are moving too fast, and making seriously wrong decisions as a result. As for the interviewer, she is terrible and ineffective. It’s amazing J Breyer doesn’t say, “Asked and answered” each time she asks the same question. That’s why it seems that he isn’t commenting four square. The Justice is being diplomatic. J. Breyer is also saying the majority is lazy.
I get the impression that if one reads the book, one will see a lot of strong comments "between the lines" and realize they are "hidden in plain sight" in this interview.
I believe that Judge Breyer feels that during his time in the court, the other justices treated other with professionalism irregardless of their political leanings. I'd like to know if he truly feels this way with the current court, particularly with the presence of Thomas.
Good historians know that they cannot completely ’know’ what people of the past were thinking and experiencing. They try to get as close to it as they can and they argue, in a mostly friendly manner, about it.
I am 75. In my life I have seen bad Congresses and bad presidents, but I always thought if it got out of control the Supreme Court would right the most important things in law. I am heartbroken at the court being controlled by rightwing religious extremists. I fear for our children and grandchildren.
His experience with group projects in schools is very different from my experience. I don't see people learning to work together, I see one or two working together and everyone else doing the bare minimum.
I am not American; am South African; am curious to know: (1:07:08) Justice Breyer says, “We built this courthouse in Boston. We told the architect, we want the people of Boston to believe, when they see it, it’s theirs. It does not belong to the judges or even the lawyers.”
Which building is he referring to? Is it the:
- Edward W. Brooke Courthouse - Kallman McKinnell & Wood Architects, - Completion Date: June 1996? …
I always believed that the Constitution should be a living and breathing document. Meaning that it grows with the changes in time. We add Amendments when it's warranted, and we can make changes with technology or other means that will come up in the future.
Wasn’t the constitution supposed to be a framework for how we govern ourselves? It wasn’t intended to outline our rights, that was an afterthought to get adopted. It was a living framework. The laws under it should fall within the framework, changing with the times.
A Supreme Court Justice is sitting here arguing that reading the Constitution "isnt enough." Words dont have meanings. You can make things up wholecloth. He literally said "don't limit yourself" which makes this an artform where Justices just read whatever they want or "feel" into the document. In that case nobody knows what the law is or what it means because some activist judge can change the meaning of words as they see fit.
The best interview of our time….if only we had leadership with such clarity, devotion integrity and knowledge….. and willingness to ask more of the American people.
It was horrible, he refuses to answer questions, he defends current corruption, he did not comment on the current state of affairs, the interview was a waste of time unless you wanted to hear the old US is the greatest stick,
We didn't have a US army or any other military group either, such as navy, etc. Thus the rights to own guns for "a well regulated militia" had a monumentally different meaning and effect than the right to bear arms does today.
I find Justice Breyer an incredible wise and just man. I even caught myself trying to apply intellect and common sense problem solving approach to the bear joke he told. 😂😂😂 Which, in my humble opinion, turned out to be a paradoxical riddle. (Puting the running 🏃♂️ 🏃♂️ shoes on wouldn't guarantee the person to outrun a bear but it would give him an advantageous chance to outrun the next possible bear victim. 🐻 🤔 So what is the paradox? Well, by the time person A puts on his/hers running shoes, person B would be far ahead of person A and the risk would outweigh the benefit or the very least annul it. This was a great Meet the Press interview and I can't way to get my hands on Justice Breyer's book. Thank you! 😊
I think you are supposed to tell the bear: "These shoes are full of CFC's and other toxins. Go after that guy." Then you don't have to outrun anyone. And besides, you may have a great conversation about environmental decline. Toxic waste dumps, raking forests, whatever. 🥸
Sometimes one can have integrity in the wrong area. He is in a position to help preserve the "old original" Constitution by speaking out against the crazy and dangerous "new" one.
He is commenting on cases when he sat on the court. Why couldn’t he comment on cases from now. He is a scholar of law and recent decisions are fair for him to comment on.
I'm 43 minutes in... Welker hasn't asked Breyer about Starry Decisis yet. At all. That is the problem with the new court. She could at least ask him about the concept. Most ppl probably don't know
At first I respected Justice Breyer's clear refusal to weigh in on current cases, but as the interview progressed it became clear that he truly has no issue with holding immense power in a lifelong position; that he opposes the transparency cameras would give the court discussions; that he will not speak openly about the obvious corruption of the court (and how could he, when he did not choose to do so while he was working there); that even in the face of leaks and ethics breaches like Thomas not recusing himself he does not think a code of ethics is necessary. The underlying philosophy here is a love of power., no matter how much its misuse damages democracy.
No, my disagreement is that Roberts believes, that he is more than the Supreme Court Justin! , Rather , he’s the chief of a “supreme government”, Further, has quite openly said so
After listening to him, I won't buy his book. He is not committed to his wisdom and experience in helping Americans to learn and understand what is happening. He just stands by and refuses to participate in the conversation, while telling others how important it is to participate. This is why we may lose our democracy. Because too many are standing by and not speaking up and saying, no, this is not fair, this is not right. And we sink further into losing our freedoms, and our way of life, to aristocracy, cleptocracy, autocracy. Too many elders particularly, near retirement or retired, seem to just not want to rock the boat, and so we sail into an uncertain, and frightening future. Just participate, and answer the question man.
And yet the challenge with "interpretism"(not pragmatism - such a word salad) is that it really depends on who is interpreting...and it can change with every person "interpreting"...same words different people different en results...just bad approach
Justice Breyer: “we have to be careful with the dangerous direction the court is taking in only interpreting the constitution based on what is written on it” Also Justice Breyer: “let me just guess what the constitution would’ve looked like if it were written by someone who had the same beliefs as me”
Justice Breyer is of course a class act, trying to respect the Court and its role while speaking in terms of ideas and principles. Meanwhile, Welker is practically begging him to condemn his former colleagues and comment on the most politically controversial issues. It's quite a contrast: On one side you have someone who dedicated his life to resolution, sitting across from someone whose entire career thrives on conflict. I have no hope for journalists, but I hope justices can continue to conduct themselves with the decency that Justice Breyer displays here.
He did not leave her with much to talk about since he refused to answer anything relevant to the current state of the courts and this country. Maybe she should have talked about sports.
I appreciate Justice Breyer's candor. A trait I admire is he is not afraid to say "I'm not going to answer that question," rather than dissemble and lie. I wish he hadn't retired - he's sharp as a tack, and possesses wisdom the current Court seems to lack.
He retired at the right time. He had his time on the court and didn't want to be like RBG holding out to so long she was replaced by someone with the opposite values. Ketanji Brown Jackson is also an sharp and excellent jurist and look to be doing well to live up to Justice Breyer legacy.
The current court seems to lack wisdom because you FEEL strongly about how the court has ruled. You didn't listen to this interview, every one of the decisions is carefully thought out and scrutinized.
@@Oak6 How does he know that is the case, he is no longer on the court?
He's a typical bull- sheighter.
@@timfuscaldo3024 The court didn't radically change in its methodology because Breyer stepped down. He worked with the majority of those judges for decades. There's no reason to assume they've gone to a policy of rushing through decisions, and they haven't
What a tremendous interview! We lost much when he retired from SCOTUS. A truly thoughtful jurist.
He has a good successor, and now he has more time to speak and write books.
100% agree
agree but He also had to deal with the legacy that RBG's death left us with. what the gop did to take advantage of her death. as well as what was done with the death that left us with kavanaugh again because of what the gop did. He chose to leave during the beginning of Bidens term to avoid the same possibility happening again. to avoid another conservitive federalist judge being forced down our throats.
Now we can hear his thinking on matters of the law instead of dying in office like his predecessors. He is a brilliant man and jurist. We the public get to read his book and hear his interviews. He can speak more freely now that he has retired from the Supreme Court.
@@rfresa Now we need at least four more successors to replace the three Trump appointees for lack of qualifications, Thomas and Alito for corruption, and Roberts for spinelessness, for allowing the foxes in the henhouse to go nuts.
Welker asked the right questions. She’s just not clever enough to ask them in a way that she got more insightful answers. If she asked questions that didn’t cover current cases in front of the court, Breyer gave very interesting answers. Ask the same topic but use past cases or hypothetical ones. Even then, Breyer is no dummy and will be careful in his answers.
“the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
Precisely- which I felt Breyer is guilty of in this case by abstaining from ANY sort of answer (or even a clue) signaling his issue with at LEAST TWO corrupt judges.
And this interview is a perfect example of a good man doing nothing.
This interview was performed by an activist reporter and News organization! Kudos to Justice Breyer for refusing to take the bait(s) and step in the mire!! Regardless, this reporter, though only doing her job for FAKE News/NBC, is so irritating!
@@lisakeane4386 Make that four.
And a Chief Justice with no spine.
Smart man, we need more judges like him, at all levels of the judiciary
Brilliant people such as myself have been saying for twenty years that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be a disaster for the GOP. How right we were!
"Brilliant people such as myself"..
@@tonytravelerroute66 if I don't blow my own horn, who will blow it?
It was time that the bigots of the GOP were put forward for all to see!
@@Kermit_T_Frog You are confused ANY Supreme Court decision is subject to being overturned. And Roe v, Wade, which was a particularly poorly reasoned decision, was vulnerable from the day it was decided.
@@Kermit_T_Frog Do a little research into the history of First Amendment law. (I especially recommend "The People's Darling Privilege: Struggles for Free Speech in American History", by Michael Kent Curtis and "Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1870-1920", by David Rabban.) And then ask yourself where we would be if First Amendment law had not started to radically change about one hundred years ago. Regards.
Don't waste time trying to overturn Dobbs. Just codify abortion.
Personhood, while we're at it; because no other artificial entity like a corporation should have rights that occlude individual human and civil rights. There is no democracy when a $ = a vote. Demos is The People, not the currency, not the corporation protected from having to be transparent and honest.
Vote for women’s rights abortion is on the Ballot in several states this November
And it is of course also possible, that the overturning of Dobbs could be overturned.
Justice Breyer is clearly top notch.
Sandra Day O'Connor also stated after her retirement from SCOTUS that the Supreme Court should not have accepted the Gore v. Bush/2000 Election
They shouldn't have. In the end Gore got more votes. Bush did not win and I have to wonder how things would of worked out if he never happened.
What a better world we would be living in today.
@@N2MyGroove
Yes Exactly 💯
George W Bush started the 21st century of hardcore in this country and it gave Reaganomics a definite Ressurection
@@N2MyGroove💯👍🏻 So true!
Imagine 8 years Al Gore and 8 years Hillary Clinton instead of 8 years Bush and 4 years Trump!
@@maximilianemusterfrau1265 It's strange how even Republicans tend to despise the Bush years, yet they can't connect the dots.
Not giving his opinion on these questions is the fine point of professionalism.
18:15 Justice Breyer may be too optimistic to think we still have or will have rule of law when capture of SCOTUS has caused the lowest approval rating in history.
BS, Thomas and Alito are the most corrupt ever…they are not doing their best. The most corrupt SCOTUS in history.
That's correct, senator Whitehouse has done excellent deep dives on exposing this.
Oh BS. You don’t get what you want and you cry 😭 😭 😭 and whine. Get yourself a pacifier and a blanket until you grow up.
Does the senator carry around a extra pair of panties to twist?
@@bardsamok9221 But who is listening?
@@luckystoller6171 hopefully patriots are listening, locking and loading
Seems quite disingenuous of Mr. Breyer to say that like his wife, Ginni Thomas is an independent woman, as if Clarence doesn't know everything she did to plan and try to execute the insurrection. He really isn't giving much hope when he thinks that SCOTUS is doing the people's work - NOT
This was incredibly “pie in the sky” thinking, IMO.
You are on the money with your comment
@@lisakeane4386 no its not.
@@lisakeane4386 At best.
I am fed up with the supreme court.
@darrell20741 you are far from the only one 🤦♀️ And we can't do anything about it which makes it infuriating 😤
So, what do we collectively do?
I think we pressure our congress people to push the Executive for expanding the court by 4 or 5 more justices. 3 liberal and one or two moderates.
Impeach Thomas. He is the most egregious example of corruption. It's a start.
Too bad. Go cry some more of your leftist tears.
@@esobed1 never going to happen. There’s one branch of the United States government that you leftists are at least 20 to 30 years away from ruining.
Justice Breyer could do more service for the country speaking out rather than protecting the corrupt court with silence.
I agree. Let's experiment... a bit more! release all transcripts 100 percent transparency and cams in the court.
Oh my God-YES! This interview frustrated me SO much!! Sir! Now is not the time to act smart and be cagey!!
And the part where he implies that it is basically “ok” for Thomas no to recuse himself…UGH.
@@oldnepalihippie YES!!! This!!! Want to remove the corruption, publicize the court hearings - I don't think it's any different that other court session - only that they have a higher profile.
@@lisakeane4386Breyer should take acting classes if he wants to pull that one off convincingly. But I don't think he cares, he's that arrogant about his lack of transparency. Of all the norms broken of late, he's gonna focus on that one norm? spill the beans m f e r
@@lisakeane4386 Agree, it was a waste of time.
Around 1:05:00, Justice Breyer basically admits that it is only the vanity of judges that prevents cameras in the courts. Your vanity/ego doesn't supersede our right to know what you're doing with our money.
Please get Rachel Maddow to host this show. We need someone who can keep up intellectually and think on her feet.
yeah. I found myself rolling my eyes at some of the questions.
And repeating the same mistake of politely withdrawing from every question of any real import. This interview was worthy of a C or D segment of a personality show, not news.
“But let me ask one more question..” 😂
I do think Maddow could keep up a bit more- but Breyer is pretty darn smart and i don’t think he’d be answering questions any more than he did if faced with a more worthy adversary.
Suggesting Rachel Maddow is a intellectual is one of the most laughable things I've seen in these comments.
@@Oak6 says the person who doesn't know when to use "an" rather than "a."
How old is Justice Breyer? Look how sharp he is!
I looked it up! He is 85!
there is NO difficulty with the abortion decision issue, NO government has the right to take upon a woman's health care choice based on a religious ideology. According to the Bible, life does not begin until the first breath which is after birth. No difficulty at all in a decision. Government has overreached their control and power over individual freedom.
I've had supreme crunchwraps more supreme than this gaggle of unelected judges. Life-time appointments are ridiculous.
OMG Justice Breyer is a pleasure to listen to. If only we had more Judges like him today.
Why interview this guy if he’s going to evade all the important questions?
Textualism and Originalism treat the Constitution as essentially a historical, dead document. I believe the Framers meant it to be a dynamic, living document that will adapt as knowledge increases.
Article 5 explains how to change the constitution. They PLANNED for change. It is not frozen for all time.
There wouldn’t be any amendments if the framers thought the constitution was a done deal.
As the justice said, encompassing our basic values and those we are working toward, pliable and applied in a modern context. As I have always understood it, A Living Document.
💯
I believe the Framers meant it to be a dynamic
--
They not.
I say this as one who tends to be an Institutionalist, I wish Breyer would understand that there are corrupt extremist rightwingers who are seeking to use our institutions against them. We cannot behave normally when the institutions are under attack. He should take a page from his correct approach of pragmatism and speak up in these abnormal times.
Of course he understands.
Likely there's some important reason why he's openly avoiding the truth about the captured SCOTUS
@@bardsamok9221 This interview actually led me to trust him far less and be more wary of ALL the justices, whether I like them or not. Now IS the time to stand up. There are no other SCOTUS retirees to call out shenanigans, much less institutional crimes. No huddling when the very basis of our country is at stake. This isn't a social club with secret rites. It seems another case of privilege blinding. By not speaking out, he's, at best, submitting to being used by the cadre of authoritarians who count on our tradition and trust that "Everything's fine; everything's just fine," as the gap in our defenses. He presents himself as a Martin Niemöller. Must be nice not to belong to any marginalized categories who need worry.
@@BaskingInObscurityI 💯 agree and I’m glad it wasn’t just me who thought this!
@@bardsamok9221 How did you arrive at your conclusion "of course he understands?"
Did he state that he understands the corrupt rightwing extremists pose an risk to SCOTUS? Or are you just guessing?
@@BaskingInObscurity It disgusts me that he does not stand up and speak his mind.
After listening to this interview, it seems to me that a Judge should be well versed in History. Then the Judge can understand the context of the law when it was written. They should understand the constitution was not written for everyone before. The Judge with good insight over time can make better decisions as we progress as a people.
Didn't more than half the country think Bush v Gore was wrong?
No
Bush loses the popular vote but wins the election with the help of the supremely partisan court. @@dannywilliams2358
@@dannywilliams2358 More than half of the folks who voted in the election, since Bush lost the popular vote.
@@untrueman then it's a good thing the popular vote is completely meaningless.
Yes, considering Bush lost the popular vote.
Thank you Justice Breyer! Your voice is needed now more than ever!
Great interview. I have one major criticism of Breyer though; when asked about the gifts and transparency his answer was full of obfuscation and gaslighting. Even if the 7 volumes of ethics don't spell out that you shouldn't accept 250K RVs as gifts I think most logical people would conclude it is an ethical issue and not reporting it is against the "rules".
What A brilliant, open minded, and delightful person. Sincerity, recognition of the magnitude of the job, and honesty.
I respect justice Breyer, but it somewhat disturbs me that he did not give his opinion as a now private citizen about the most burning issues at the present. He should have commented about J6 and our right to know about presidential immunity issue.
You have only brilliant mind if you make your reasoning of burning issues known. Brilliant mind gets lost if it is kept only in one head.
I loved listening to Justice Breyer he's great & missed on the Supreme Court
Unfortunate he does not want to comment on how corrupt the court system has become.
Loved hearing from Justice Breyer. Too bad he can't replace the criminal Thomas.
Too bad there isn't a WAY to replace him. A comatose garden snail would be a step upward. A thoughtful jurist would be beyond all expectations.
I'm from Trenton NJ. 2 SC Justices grew up where I'm from Alito and Scalia. I know how they will vote every time. They are both from the part of Trenton where my mother taught for 30 years..
Every time I hear Justice Breyer refuse to comment, I ponder if RBG was around and how different her response would be.
Too bad she didn’t leave the court until Trump was president
He is freer now than when was a jurist.
In between lines all I heard from Breyer is everything is common sense and indirectly SCOTUS has ruptured and not aware of history and current stand by SCOTUS is bad approach and should change course and has loss the SCOTUS value. My apology if I heard his lines wrongly and perhaps he should said more directly instead of putting words in his mouth.
Yes, distrust occurs… Thomas should step out of Supreme Court. I was ashamed of the Supreme Court for allowing him to stay. Ashamed of him.
The choice is whether or not one views the constitution as a living document. I do! It lives in today! Vote Blue for its preservation!
I felt like Welker’s questions were a little too direct and obvious at times here. This represents a missed opportunity, given how rare it is to have such a large amount of time with a SC Justice.
And it is of course also possible, that the overturning of Dobbs could be overturned.
Because it just seems important to the Heritage Society.
I found this interview upsetting because he felt like he couldn't answer any of the very relevant and important questions. I think he still thinks he's a judge. And can't have his own opinion or ideas expressed.
He doesn't have any
He is still part of the institution of the Supreme Court. If he was to assert an opinion, people would use his words and run with it. Being measured in your words is an amazing attribute in a judge, and honestly a person. I think it's good that he doesn't say anything too controversial to let the actions of the current court stand and force those currently on the bench to explain their decisions in their written opinion.
As much as I would like to hear his perspective, he is in the right not to express an opinion in these cases because it can be taken out of context or someone may mince his words.
@@mysteriousth1ef or...it's nobody's business but his
I agree with you. He's spineless. Why agree to an interview when you can't answer any questions? If he's a judge, and he feels like it's not appropriate to talk about cases, then why be on television? Ridiculous.
This is why I've always admired Justice Breyer. He's disciplined and unable to be swayed, even under the scrutiny of serious questioning. Throughout his time on the Supreme Court, he could be trusted with his deliberations because he was always aware of the big picture and what potential effects it would have in the future. Great interview!
The applause goes away until you rewrite a precedent that's been standing for 50 years. Then you get half the applause back. Judges shouldn't rewrite laws by judicial review
There doesn't have to be a law on abortion. Canada has no law. Canada treats abortion the same as any other medical procedure. You want a law? Pass a law that medical practitioners are the people who make medical decisions in consultation with their patients.
If he's this tight lipped in person, what would his book be like? I have no interest in buying and reading about absolutely nothing.
It was not MAGA groups helping during covid
A brilliant jurist, but his refusal to comment is unfortunate.
TRUTH.
So you and your mob can attempt to take his words and run with them? Do you think he really has time to go through and entire decision much less many of them in a short interview?
@@Oak6 What mob? The American people?
To my lawyer’s ears, he is commenting loudly and clearly-the Supremes are moving too fast, and making seriously wrong decisions as a result. As for the interviewer, she is terrible and ineffective. It’s amazing J Breyer doesn’t say, “Asked and answered” each time she asks the same question. That’s why it seems that he isn’t commenting four square. The Justice is being diplomatic. J. Breyer is also saying the majority is lazy.
I get the impression that if one reads the book, one will see a lot of strong comments "between the lines" and realize they are "hidden in plain sight" in this interview.
Thank you Justice Breyer.
If he can’t answer anything then why is he there?
A lot of I can’t answer then am stay home!
What a waste of time watching this, should have cut it down to 10 minutes eliminating all the questions he refused to answer.
Wonderful interview, and historic!
I believe that Judge Breyer feels that during his time in the court, the other justices treated other with professionalism irregardless of their political leanings. I'd like to know if he truly feels this way with the current court, particularly with the presence of Thomas.
This judge does not want to talk about trump
"I don't mean to be coy"...Me holding two opposing feelings at the same time, a class act SCJ and a profoundly frustrating interview!!
Fantastic Interview!
wonderful! if only every american could see and understand this program!
Good historians know that they cannot completely ’know’ what people of the past were thinking and experiencing. They try to get as close to it as they can and they argue, in a mostly friendly manner, about it.
This book is wonderfully engaging. I can't recommend it enough.
I am 75. In my life I have seen bad Congresses and bad presidents, but I always thought if it got out of control the Supreme Court would right the most important things in law. I am heartbroken at the court being controlled by rightwing religious extremists. I fear for our children and grandchildren.
Extraordinary interview, thank you.
Justice Breyer declined answering *All* SCOTUS questions or was vague, therefore it was a waste of journalistic time
Fascinating interview!
He refuses to comment on recent court judgments. How does he view the former president, Trump, on his comments considering his power and following.
Breyer won’t say anything negative about the other justices.
They lead cloistered lives and it shows.
His experience with group projects in schools is very different from my experience. I don't see people learning to work together, I see one or two working together and everyone else doing the bare minimum.
I so love this guy!!!!! such a great man
I am not American; am South African; am curious to know:
(1:07:08) Justice Breyer says, “We built this courthouse in Boston. We told the architect, we want the people of Boston to believe, when they see it, it’s theirs. It does not belong to the judges or even the lawyers.”
Which building is he referring to? Is it the:
- Edward W. Brooke Courthouse - Kallman McKinnell & Wood Architects,
- Completion Date: June 1996?
…
What a smart, alert, delightful old fella.
I always believed that the Constitution should be a living and breathing document. Meaning that it grows with the changes in time. We add Amendments when it's warranted, and we can make changes with technology or other means that will come up in the future.
What does it say about a whole Congressional party being controlled by Fascist Russian agents? We need a bit of help here.
He lost me at the 2nd amendment.
Our government should never be trusted.
We need more judges like him. Rather than ketanji brown
Wasn’t the constitution supposed to be a framework for how we govern ourselves? It wasn’t intended to outline our rights, that was an afterthought to get adopted. It was a living framework. The laws under it should fall within the framework, changing with the times.
A Supreme Court Justice is sitting here arguing that reading the Constitution "isnt enough."
Words dont have meanings. You can make things up wholecloth.
He literally said "don't limit yourself" which makes this an artform where Justices just read whatever they want or "feel" into the document.
In that case nobody knows what the law is or what it means because some activist judge can change the meaning of words as they see fit.
Wonderful interview!
The best interview of our time….if only we had leadership with such clarity, devotion integrity and knowledge….. and willingness to ask more of the American people.
The best of our time? Sensationalist much?
It was horrible, he refuses to answer questions, he defends current corruption, he did not comment on the current state of affairs, the interview was a waste of time unless you wanted to hear the old US is the greatest stick,
We didn't have a US army or any other military group either, such as navy, etc. Thus the rights to own guns for "a well regulated militia" had a monumentally different meaning and effect than the right to bear arms does today.
I find Justice Breyer an incredible wise and just man. I even caught myself trying to apply intellect and common sense problem solving approach to the bear joke he told. 😂😂😂 Which, in my humble opinion, turned out to be a paradoxical riddle. (Puting the running 🏃♂️ 🏃♂️ shoes on wouldn't guarantee the person to outrun a bear but it would give him an advantageous chance to outrun the next possible bear victim. 🐻 🤔 So what is the paradox? Well, by the time person A puts on his/hers running shoes, person B would be far ahead of person A and the risk would outweigh the benefit or the very least annul it.
This was a great Meet the Press interview and I can't way to get my hands on Justice Breyer's book. Thank you! 😊
I think you are supposed to tell the bear: "I think
I think you are supposed to tell the bear: "These shoes are full of CFC's and other toxins. Go after that guy." Then you don't have to outrun anyone. And besides, you may have a great conversation about environmental decline. Toxic waste dumps, raking forests, whatever. 🥸
Sometimes one can have integrity in the wrong area. He is in a position to help preserve the "old original" Constitution by speaking out against the crazy and dangerous "new" one.
The Supreme Court needs reeducating, or replaced
Using methods that ask what the context is the foundation of critical thinking. Context must be considered.
Shame on the Russian, raicist GOP
He is commenting on cases when he sat on the court. Why couldn’t he comment on cases from now. He is a scholar of law and recent decisions are fair for him to comment on.
In other words, according to Stephen Breyer, "CONSTITUTION? WHAT CONSTITUTION? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING CONSTITUTION!"
Anything's possible. Not likely tho.
I'm 43 minutes in... Welker hasn't asked Breyer about Starry Decisis yet. At all. That is the problem with the new court. She could at least ask him about the concept. Most ppl probably don't know
At first I respected Justice Breyer's clear refusal to weigh in on current cases, but as the interview progressed it became clear that he truly has no issue with holding immense power in a lifelong position; that he opposes the transparency cameras would give the court discussions; that he will not speak openly about the obvious corruption of the court (and how could he, when he did not choose to do so while he was working there); that even in the face of leaks and ethics breaches like Thomas not recusing himself he does not think a code of ethics is necessary. The underlying philosophy here is a love of power., no matter how much its misuse damages democracy.
We miss Justice Breyer!
❤❤😊cesar
No, my disagreement is that Roberts believes, that he is more than the Supreme Court Justin! ,
Rather , he’s the chief of a “supreme government”,
Further, has quite openly said so
Justice Stephen Breyer is eloquent and brilliant with so much integrity and wisdom.
He should have been Chief Justice and Not Roberts!
Someone manipulated the,”Roberts theory of the Rule of Law. choice and George Bush reciprocated!
After listening to him, I won't buy his book. He is not committed to his wisdom and experience in helping Americans to learn and understand what is happening. He just stands by and refuses to participate in the conversation, while telling others how important it is to participate. This is why we may lose our democracy. Because too many are standing by and not speaking up and saying, no, this is not fair, this is not right. And we sink further into losing our freedoms, and our way of life, to aristocracy, cleptocracy, autocracy. Too many elders particularly, near retirement or retired, seem to just not want to rock the boat, and so we sail into an uncertain, and frightening future. Just participate, and answer the question man.
And yet the challenge with "interpretism"(not pragmatism - such a word salad) is that it really depends on who is interpreting...and it can change with every person "interpreting"...same words different people different en results...just bad approach
Justice Breyer: “we have to be careful with the dangerous direction the court is taking in only interpreting the constitution based on what is written on it”
Also Justice Breyer: “let me just guess what the constitution would’ve looked like if it were written by someone who had the same beliefs as me”
Thanks for this interview. Excellent. Everyone who votes should have to see this.
I agree with him on this. It’s just common sense.
Common Sense has no place in the Rule of Law. Sorry.
He can’t/won’t answer the questions. Why sit for the interview? He is not a judge anymore.
Justice Breyer is of course a class act, trying to respect the Court and its role while speaking in terms of ideas and principles. Meanwhile, Welker is practically begging him to condemn his former colleagues and comment on the most politically controversial issues. It's quite a contrast: On one side you have someone who dedicated his life to resolution, sitting across from someone whose entire career thrives on conflict. I have no hope for journalists, but I hope justices can continue to conduct themselves with the decency that Justice Breyer displays here.
Justice Breyer. Thankyou….Any man that keeps a copy of the CONSTITUTION in his pocket, is a guy worth listening to!
Welker is an AWFUL interviewer… is she listening to anything Judge Breyer is saying? And she repeats the same question again and again…sigh!
Welker, not walker
@@themaestro7922 autocorrect….
He did not leave her with much to talk about since he refused to answer anything relevant to the current state of the courts and this country. Maybe she should have talked about sports.