Scalia Lecture | Justice Stephen G. Breyer, “The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics”
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 кві 2021
- At Harvard Law School’s annual Scalia lecture on April 6, 2021, Stephen G. Breyer ’64, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, warned against alterations to the nation’s highest Court that could erode the public’s longstanding confidence in the judiciary, instead inviting the American people, and the Court itself, to work together to maintain and build trust in the rule of law.
The Scalia lecture series, which was established by an anonymous donor in 2013 in honor of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin G. Scalia ’60, is aimed at promoting and advancing the understanding of the founding principles and core doctrines of the U.S. Constitution.
Read more at Harvard Law Today today.law.harvard.edu/supreme...
I think Justice. Breyer Delivered a brilliant Scalia lecture. How refreshing to hesr such a voice of sanity in insane times
Fascinating how he's told ALL of these stories in numerous previous lectures and interviews, yet this is the first time I've seen them all in one place and they've been woven together into one argument.
poop oui iii ouii o oponente a fait oo oli ou 🎸 ou ooooooooi oooooi
sorry I fell asleep on my phone and wrote with my face
A rich lecture on the role of the Supreme Court in the USA and how it has faired. Two of America's greatest failures. The land, Gold of the Cheeroke Indians in Georgia. That were ultimately forced onto the trail of Tears to Oklahoma. The second being the deportation of American Japanese U S. Citizens into concentration camps in the West during WWII. Both are tragedies that have yet to be remedied.
My deepest sympathies to Justice Scalia's family for the passing of their husband, father, grandfather and friend.
Also to the American people for loosing a genuine Supreme Court Justice, that was honest and true to the Constitution.
I am an Australian woman who has been listening to Justice Scalia only recently, and am hoping to find something that can help the Australian people in our fight against tyranny, as the way our country is heading is quite heartbreaking.
This great man would be disgusted in the turn the world has taken.
I found very refreshing his stance on the rights of a parent to raise his children the way he thought was right.
He said, for that , he would fight a revolution.
I could see that this is a family man, and believes in family, and keeping the family unit intact.
Thank you, for having these lectures online, for someone who lives on the other side of the world to enjoy and learn from.
Great lecture. Im not a legal professional, or even an American, I still found this very enganging and interesting. That should say something about justice Breyers communication skills.
What a fantastic lecture. A great orator, and great educator.
This was another of Justice Breyer's wonderful speeches. I so enjoy listing to him 'teach' in his speeches. The biggest take away in this lecture for me was the critical need to get our children to understand how their government works, explain how they can participate in their federal democracy, and finally, make sure they develop the skills to cooperate and compromise. I'm of the opinion that these educational imperatives are the key to sustaining our union.
Brilliant.
He was never my favorite but he always had my respect. The country is worse without him.
Very educational. This is a great historical document that will be used to show who this man was for generations to come and to teach lay people like me some critical lessons about the judicial branch of the United States and the Supreme Court as an institution.
"The law is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the due process clause, the courts will be very busy indeed."
--Byron White
We had two justices for one week.
Fascinating!!
Wow amazing ☺️ how are you doing today hope we can talk more better and get to know each other so we can share same chemistry🌹
Justice Breyer has acted as a faithful servant of our country and of the law in this moment. He hasn't been my favorite justice, but Breyer has done more to safeguard the institution of the Court through this address than Chief Justice Roberts has through various maneuvers to that end in recent years.
It was extremely pleasing to see, hear, realize that, at the least, there is this sanity still around, sanity of decent "weight"!
agreed.
Wow amazing ☺️ how are you doing today hope we can talk more better and get to know each other so we can share same chemistry🌹
Lots in there hard to comment other than 101first airborne escorting the kids to school showed how much power the public has. So much better minds than me. Sawadee 🤠
I thought the Justice addressed a lot of good points, from different angles. Very thought provoking. I usually enjoy his questioning style and directness in oral arguments.
Well thought provoking lecture as expressed from a highly experienced authoritarian of our Judicial Branch. Thoroughly enjoyed, in its entirety, the delivery of our judicial process from a man who should NOT give in to those calling for his retirement... Justice, your delivery was indeed engaging which offered an enjoyable perspective for me, a Conservative female. Thank you ~
Wow amazing ☺️ how are you doing today hope we can talk more better and get to know each other so we can share same chemistry🌹
We can't have a 7-2 conservative court! He needs to retire!
@@anticorncob6 He certainly does not. It's not appropriate to think of the court as a political institution.
Thank you for this content! Amazing! And the moderator seems so lovely just right off the bat!
A few weeks ago, I helped out a ex-judge who needed to gather some of his belongings from my aunts house. The only reason I didn't break every bone in his body is because I disapprove of elder abuse. I was ackshually sort of nice to him. Being nice to people will get you places, so I've heard.
This guy has an impressive resume! Really smart
That is one of the most impressive understatement I've seen in a while. He is Antonin Scalia to originalism as to living constitutionalism. A true intellectual giant.
No slight at Justice Breyer, but this seems a little basic.
He's talking to law students and professors, and explaining in detail Marbury v Madison. I'm sure they all know it. I was familiar in high school. And that's on the weightier end. The latter commentary on public opinion and judges striving to be apolitical is even more common knowledge, even without the word "usually". Although I do think he offered some insights later about minimalism.
I'm comparing this to the lecture I watched just before this from Judge Easterbrook. He had some interesting points about the 14th amendment vs due process and the evolution of the commerce clause. I felt challenged and paused a few times to look stuff up. That's more what I would expect from a Scalia lecture.
I think he’s speaking to L1 students and the public. In many of his lectures he repeats the same examples and cases and I think he’s just trying to give everyday Americans in the age of social media an opportunity to learn a bit more about the court
Is there a time stamp re: Court packing?
52:00
Preface for the discussion at roughly 20:00 - 27:00
Sir, please stay on the court. I'm a big fan of you and justice Scalia since 8th grade ever since I heard one of your discussions hosted by the federalist society and always wanted to clerk for one of you. I'm now a second-year college student(planning to graduate early). So maybe 6 more years until I can apply to clerk for you?
When those who work in the administrative sector honor a wrongly decided, I too will honor that wrongly decided - respect notwithstanding.
This page is not only justified making love respect but all people's make the same to love respect never making wrongs but for joking making tolerance no the same with my friands...
Give legal justice for all
Joy
The main difference between Justice Breyer and Scalia is a divide that exists within the wider world, on one hand you have the people who believe in objective truth and that the court should seek to strive toward upholding this unchanging principle of reality, these are the people who revere the constitution and would die to protect it they are also usually Christian, in Christianity there is a clear distinction between good and bad, there is God's Truth and laws which stand above the laws of Man.
The other camp believes truth changes with time and is different for everyone, they are relativists and usually quite secular, they have a hard time with binary concepts such as good and bad and so everything opens up for interpretation, they don't care for the constitution because they believe its an outdated document, the law should reflect whatever Man decides is the law.
These two polarities are exactly what differentiates Order from Chaos, God from Satan, Capitalism from Communism. Capitalism believes that if everyone has the freedom to pursue their own aims it will all balance out perfectly, Communism however is Man's ideal, it says "life is unfair and we must make it fair", it doesn't like that people suffer and some people turn out rich and others poor, they lack a spiritual framework in which they can view these things as just, they seek to eradicate "unfairness" (as they see it), through institutional power they lay down the law (Man's law) upon all its subjects and ultimately ends up in totalitarianism.
They are obsessed with that which is different, anything which is in a minority is praised, anything which is a majority is seen as an oppressor, in their world there are no majorities or minorities, there is no difference between male and female, good or bad, the world as they see it is an amorphous thing which is devoid of any life. This worldview has pushed people into seeking out ever more creative ways of making themselves part of a minority rather than a majority, by ascribing deviating sexual preferences, by creating combinations of race, gender, physical disability, mental disability etc etc... Which has resulted in an explosion of terms that increasingly seem to have no defining characteristics at all. How can you define a word if the very act of definition (namely the restriction of meaning to a single thing) is seen as evil? To define a "woman" for them is almost a hate crime, how dare you define something objectively to mean something so narrow?
In the end their chaos seeps into every facet of society which ultimately will spell its inevitable demise, you cannot create a bridge without fixed structures, you cannot make calculations in physics if the formulae keep on changing. At some point whatever you think about reality has to come in contact with what reality truly is, it is not something which can be endlessly manipulated by the mind into whatever we want it to be. At the end of the day each of us will have to use the toilet, our stomachs will growl when we don't eat, when we fall from a sufficient height we will feel pain. We are not God's who are exempt from the laws of this world, and this is why Satanism is such a good analogy for the progressive left, both spit on the notion that there exists a Truth which does not bend to their will, they rebuke the idea of God and seek to become Gods themselves.
This is the oldest story of the world it seems, told to us through myths. To all who think they are so great think of this one thing, you do not control anything, you do not control whether your heart beats now or stops the next second, you do not control who your parents were or with what characteristics and predispositions you were born with, you do not control whether in your early life you would come into contact with some very evil people or some very good people. You do not control even meeting the love of your life! The person who understands that they are powerless in the grand scheme of things will fall to their knees and thank God for all they have been given. Those who have been gifted with a quick mind very easily start feeling superior to others even though they were lucky enough to have been born in that way.
I don't agree with Justice Breyer, I think Christian thinking became perverted when tolerance was turned into indiscriminateness, when in the name of acceptance we came to accept that which was evil. You will know them by their fruits! I can confidently say that their fruits are rotten! Destruction of the traditional family, declining birthrates and increasing chaos has been their gift to the world.
And now they have come to retire him, even though he has served their agenda well, he isn't as radical as they are, as always with the leftists, they end up devouring their own until there is nothing left. God speed.
My comment is one.Hwy Justified Supreme Court no make for stop discrimination president's: Media government particularly ?
Listening to this, it makes the decision of the court to NOT hear Trump's case understandable. I think they were maintaining the authority of the court. I think they knew that regardless of what the decision was, if they heard the case, half the country would lose respect for the court and stop listening to them. They would have lost an enormous amount of authority and it's doubtful they would have gotten it back in time to do this country any good.
Thinking of it in this way, I think they made the right choice.
Yes, However I do dissent as valid opinion made that in not accepting what otherwise are valid cases that they would of normally have heard without issue they, by default, lost half the countries respect for, large amount of authority, belief in system. It was a very hard decision and I bet you it was very very close - just read Justice Thomas's dissent brief and you will know that. Time will tell. You know their was a 3rd option, in not have to simply be we accept case or not - they could have had cake and eat it too yet they didn't choose that, those possible options and hence I dissent even further!!! Throw it back to Congress and order them, if which they have legal authority already in ability to carry out, special election and/or other manner where a honest election result is determined and the people have confidence in the result whether that being Biden or Trump. In fact this goes exactly to what Breyer spoke to in his lecture - the importance of the people buying into the system, the operations of being in the up and up. SCOTUS should have, it is their job and responsibility in doing such, taken the case(s) and kicked it back to Congress, the States, to satisfy this matter appropriately. That is what would of been end result best for this nation and that was not done!
I join Silver Whale in his dissent. By NOT taking the Trump cases, especially Texas v Multiple States, they did exactly what he worries about... a vast number of Americans lost a significant amount of faith in SCOTUS. Their position (that Texas as a State had no Standing) was bullsh*t. The State (ANY State) is just as affected by the results of an election as the people they represent. They have an obligation to defend the rights of their own voters to participate in a free and FAIR election.
Look at what Texas is dealing with right now with regards to the unmitigated flood of illegal immigrants pouring across the border. Texas tax payers are being FORCED to cover a large amount of this cost with no promise of seeing a refund from the Feds. That situation is a DIRECT result of SCOTUS shirking its duty in that one case. And if you think for a moment that the Dems aren't planning to 'legalize' as many of those 'new voters' in Texas before the next Gubernatorial election, you're really missing the truth. They'll do anything to turn Texas 'Blue', and lock down the Electoral votes that Texas brings to the Presidential race.
Once they push through their packing of the court, do you think the Dems will pause for even a second and re-think any of their plans? You have to look past the 2020 election, and see what they are doing, or have said they will do with the majority in Congress, to really understand how horribly SCOTUS blew it when they refused to hear that case. In a vain attempt to please everyone, or maintain what power the Court has, they may very well have destroyed it all. So yeah, I dissent with your opinion. Breyer voted to do exactly what he's arguing the court shouldn't do. Hypocrite.
@@TheBalrogTx 100%! Sick to the stomach and all but thrown in the towel.
@@TheBalrogTx
Almost all legal experts as well as all nine justices agreed Texas had no standing. It wasn't rejected for political reasons.
@@anticorncob6 Clearly, my reasons for why I believe the State DID have standing didn't persuade you, and obviously SCOTUS didn't ask me. Frankly, I don't care what legal hoops they had to jump through in order to reject this case, the fact remains that in so doing, they did EXACTLY what Scalia laments in his speech... by refusing to even hear the case, they convinced a large percentage of the nation that justice is dead; it's all about power and who has it. Ultimately, whether is was cases brought by private citizens, campaigns, political parties, PACS, or state governments... in every case around the nation... 'Lack of Standing' was used as an excuse to avoid the issues and shield the nation from evidence that has yet to be presented in a court of law. NO ONE has standing, as far as the courts were concerned.
The political question excuse has always been a cop out for the courts.
US federal courts venture too much into political questions. The US political system needs to be reformed radically to force Congress and the Senate to deal with crucial and even controversial questions of policy because that's what they are elected to do. Elected officials routinely abdicate their responsibilities to federal courts.
@@nyalih929 knowing that federal courts will abdicate thru the "political question" doctrine....
IDA.,(Mrs.)
The Art of Law 🤔.
Hospital Dr René delapaz Reyes Guevara
Cadaalda aduunka iyo demuquraadiyDa aan doortay aan ku hoos qado cid iga weecisa marabo meeshaa ayaan doortay hadaan ku hoos qado meeshee loo dhaafi
This page is justified supreme Court Guarantee never abusive and discrimination I'm expert strictly no particulary never voting presidencal only for Justifilt suport make sure happy for critical everyone I don't care what part is never ben compromis Democrat and Republican love respect only Justified. Only best friend Kamala was senator to be love respect long years ago mostly 10 years ago.but never compromise particularly I'm very very strict for the truth for all information things conclusion to answer the truth my idea but never discrimination...
🌹
Wow amazing ☺️ how are you doing today hope we can talk more better and get to know each other so we can share same chemistry🌹
The Biden administration wants this brilliant Justice to retire. Gee, I wonder what could be motivating that?
Yeah! Superman is on your team and your teams event is weightlifting yet your team argues for Superman to not be part of the starting roster. Yeah, I'd say fair to say something is off, judge who are pro America and who are not. Understatement!
We don't want a 7-2 conservative court. They would overturn gay marriage.
@@anticorncob6 really says something that, in a country with thousands of state, local and federal elected officials, key matters such as same-sex marriage, health care, the environment fall onto the hands of 9 judges.
I think Scalia is rolling in his grave at what has happened to this nation.
In the future America (2nd beast of Revelation 13 will form an image to the 1st beast(Papacy). Lamb like beast with 2 horns (separation of church and state)that will speak as a dragon (Through its LAWS). No wonder in the future there will be Sunday Law (forced Sunday worship/rest/false Sabbath) will be passed as prophecied which is the Mark of the beast because its the counterfeit of God’s true Bible Saturday sabbath/rest which Satan hates because Sabbath is a memorial of God’s creation and He as A CREATOR of all. This Sunday law, Whoever will not comply will be persecuted, killed, cant buy or sell. However God will save His people and the end will come. FYI: Not to mention 6 out 9 justices currently are Catholics.
There's much more to it than just the outward observance of a day. In Christ's time, the religious people (Jews) observed the seventh day as a day of rest. So did Christ. Nevertheless there was an intense antagonism between them. Why? Until you can answer that question, you have not understood the real issues behind the final battle.
Because there were seventh-day keepers who crucified Christ, there will also be seventh-day keepers who join in with the image of the beast to persecute the saints again. The mere outward observance of a particular day will not save anyone, nor will it fully distinguish the sheep from the wolves. There are actually two different gospels involved.
The sabbath is a sign of God's creative power. The true gospel is the power of God to save from sin. Therefore, only in those whom the power of God has worked, to save them from sin, is the true rest found. Those who do not have that rest within, but yet strive to keep a day for God (whether the seventh, first, or any other day), are making a Cain-like offering...their own works. It is not acceptable to God.
Nevertheless, those who live to see Christ come in the skies will be commandment-keepers, by the power of the gospel. They live by "ever word that proceeds out of the mouth of God," and ignore every word that does not proceed from God's mouth. And one of those words from God's mouth is "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy....the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God." They will find life in that word, just as they find life in every other word of God.
“If you love me, keep my commandments.” Of course it will always start from within (sanctification). You follow God’s commandments because you were saved (Justification) and that you loved God. However towards the final battle between God and Satan its all about worship and loyalty. Choose you this day whom you will serve. Truth vs Error.
Stfu you kook.
The dean's left eye looks funny
If J. SGB was to retire, Leondra Krugrer should be his replacement. Of course, a fedsoc ca judge would be preferable.
In he “were” to retire? Why in the world should this extremely intelligent man, who appears to be more than mentally capable to continue in his capacity as a Judge on the Supreme Court retire, especially when we have others currently serving in our federal government, who are in their late 70’s and are definitely suffering from mental decline.
@@ruthgrady2824 That's right. Race do not give any califications or capacity to fill any vacancy in the Supreme Court.
@@ruthgrady2824 He is a remarkably intelligent man, indeed. I do not want him to retire, nor do I believe he has to because of his age. That's the reason for the "if". And since the current president has vowed to replace any Justice with a black female jurist, J. Krugrer is the best one, in my modest opinion, out of the names being considered.
@@ProNailsSchool the current president has vowed to fill any vacancy with a black female jurist, not me. Thus my suggestion of Justice Krugrer
Would have preferred Scalia alive and speaking here. Sad.
I love how youtube knows when I go to sleep and then just starts playing this garbage or cnn bullshit and ruining my feed and its only on this device (logged in on three devices.) and only when I go to sleep? COINCIDENCE???? me thinks not.
I miss you Scalia 😢 Breyer kcuf uoy!!!!@
Awesome you should be lobbying for Expanded Med4all single payer healthcare and global warming/heating.
He was alright for a guy with a left side.
ADATITLE2TORTCLAIMS access to the court account mizell vr Hamilton mizell vr neuss mizell vr Hernandez