Justice Breyer Says SCOTUS Risks Creating “A Constitution That No One Wants” | Amanpour and Company
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 кві 2024
- Florida has cleared the way for its six-week abortion ban to take effect. But, in a separate ruling, the state's supreme court justices are allowing the issue to be put to voters in November for a proposed constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its first abortion-related case since the overturning of Roe, appears skeptical of a nationwide ban on mifepristone, a drug used for medical abortions. Interpreting the Constitution for modern America is of course the divisive legal dilemma of the times, and retired Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer tackles it head-on in his new book “Reading the Constitution,” which he speaks about with Walter Isaacson.
Originally aired on April 2, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major support for Amanpour and Company is provided by The Anderson Family Endowment, Jim Attwood and Leslie Williams, Candace King Weir, the Leila and Mickey Straus Family Charitable Trust, Mark J. Blechner, the Filomen M. D'Agostino Foundation, Seton J. Melvin, Charles Rosenblum, Koo and Patricia Yuen, Barbara Hope Zuckerberg, Jeffrey Katz and Beth Rogers, Bernard and Denise Schwartz, the JPB Foundation, the Sylvia A. and Simon B. Poyta Programming Endowment to Fight Antisemitism and Josh Weston.
Subscribe to the Amanpour and Company. channel here: bit.ly/2EMIkTJ
Subscribe to our daily newsletter to find out who's on each night: www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-...
For more from Amanpour and Company, including full episodes, click here: to.pbs.org/2NBFpjf
Like Amanpour and Company on Facebook: bit.ly/2HNx3EF
Follow Amanpour and Company on Twitter: bit.ly/2HLpjTI
Watch Amanpour and Company weekdays on PBS (check local listings).
Amanpour and Company features wide-ranging, in-depth conversations with global thought leaders and cultural influencers on the issues and trends impacting the world each day, from politics, business and technology to arts, science and sports. Christiane Amanpour leads the conversation on global and domestic news from London with contributions by prominent journalists Walter Isaacson, Michel Martin, Alicia Menendez and Hari Sreenivasan from the Tisch WNET Studios at Lincoln Center in New York City.
#amanpourpbs
separation of Church vs State is SO important. It's frightening what is happening in the US these days.
It is ironic that countries which do not specify this division of church and state, or even have state subsidy of churches, find that churches have less influence than in the US, where religion is part and parcel of political debate. In Germany, Sweden, the UK, and elsewhere, only very rarely does a candidate for election even mention religious beliefs. Yet, in these countries religion is taught in schools, and in England there is a state religion.
AIPAC
Religious ideologies should to restricted to religious people's homes and temples, no exceptions
Religo-mythology...the root of evil, taught the people that the ends justify the means. The original sin.
@@grahamjones5400 Behind closed doors like all perversions!
Breyer is talking about common sense and the greater good.
Things must really be bad for him to speak publicly like this. The last few appointees are idiots with dubious connections or credentials and now several have been found to work despite clear conflicts of interest. It’s disheartening and just another reason to terms with limits and perhaps a larger group with more aggregate outcomes.
Very wise man,to bad more judges are not like him,we would be in a much greater place.
He's talking "common nonsense"
I dont know about the "greater good" but he is certainly following his conscious and deep legal understanding.
@@zackf3688 when he was the decenting judge in Heller that means the rest of the Supreme Court said his opinion was wrong.
An American with nuance and intelligence taking a balanced view. Holy shit! He is an endangered species.
Protect this fellow at all costs.
Intrest balancing means finding excuses to justify the government stripping away the rights of the people. The bill of rights doesn't give the people their rights the bill of rights is there to explain what the government doesn't have authority to mess with.
@@annmarieknapphe’s retired, so his impact is greatly diminished.
@@Sarcasmarkusgo join a militia, a well-regulated one, then.
@@paulpease8254
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
-George Mason, June 4, 1788, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention
The constitution clearly states it is written for "We the People." To give corporation my rights, is just a plain misinterpretation of the constitution.
The people who own those corporations have rights, and they can exercise those rights through those corporations just like they can as individuals. The Bill of Rights applies to to both.
@@willmont8258 no one is taking away the rights of individual owners it is the collective to have limited liability of a corporation that is the problem. If a corporation has limited liability why do I not have the same rights.
@@peace8373 Giving corporations limited liability is not because of the Constitution, but because the legislature has created laws to do so. But that has nothing to do with the SC ruling that corporations have rights like freedom of the press. Does freedom of the press apply to the New York Times? That is a corporation .
@@willmont8258 Corporations are only a fraction of the people they are not 'we the people' and should not be dictating laws for all...
@willmont8258 the people who own those corporations already have representation. Letting them use a corporation and more importantly making that corporation equivalent to an actual person gives the owner additional influence. It's double dipping.
The SCOTUS created an oligarchy here since 2010 Citizens United. It’s why they receive so many expensive gifts; the few we know of..
SCOTUS has been deeply corrupt for centuries. Read the "railroad" cases... you'll see for yourself. The whole thing's a stinking joke.
Well put.
True. They think they slick too
Don't be daft. Hillary spent over $2B and associations spent another $1B+ on her campaign and she lost to Trump who spent hundreds-of-millions.
If you still think Citizens United is a major issue then you do not live in the real world.
Democrats are not losing because Republicans have/spend more money. Democrats are losing because their policies range from unethical to crimes-against-humanity.
If you still support then in 2024 there is something very wrong with you and you are not a good person; you are disturbed or brainwashed or both.
Been that way for far longer. When SCOTUS ruled against Henry Ford in a case about profit sharing vs shareholder dividends, and found a business exists to make money for shareholders instead of the workers who create that wealth.
The separation of faith from politics and law exists for a reason. It exists to prevent a very small minority of religious believers imposing their belief systems on everybody else. We cannot have faiths determining laws, way too many faiths it would be chaos.
@keithrodgers1030 - Also, religious beliefs cannot be quantified and tested like science and laws can.
Yeah really! How are we gonna deal with the snake handlers who want to push their beliefs onto the rest of us.
And yet half of the SCOTUS Justices are Roman Catholic. Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett. All of those listed are also Republicans.
And any one “recognized” religion would definitely be punitive to all the other religions. The founders knew that. - A couple days ago in the AZ capitol there were state reps kneeling on the floor in a circle with behinds in the air “speaking in tongues” praying after they allowed the bill from the 1860’s to stand, restricting women’s choice. Praying or babbling it looked Terrible! I believe they should be removed for that personal religious display. It was on the Drudge Report - you can find it on UA-cam. They were not working for their citizens of AZ. That was clear. They had their own religious minds made up.
The same words can say either way, saying the intent of Meine Kampf, or Martin Luther King’s great speeches.
Of course you have to sense, summon the spirit of human freedom over the millennia and apply reason to determine what laws will work now. Cutting off this spirit is an intention to take away rights, from the outset.
SCOTUS basically took White-Out to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment already, scribbling in over it "whatever gets us the politics we prefer".
What the court said, in Roe vs Wade that the States or US government must pass laws allowing abortion. (The clause: "Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness & others) does not apply for abortion We have had (60) years to resolve this issue and only some States addressed abortion. The rest slept and trusted SCOTUS Roe vs Wade would stand forever, a political decision.
The Emoluments clause is no longer enforced also. It is actually called "phoney" and the courts agree.
Exactly
This is the Number ONE issue for me.
They essentially said A Tyrant CAN run at the National Level but NOT at the State level....
That doesn't make sense, since a Tyrant can do Greater damage at the National Level.
Nobody as corrupt, lawless and deceitful than Democrats. You people are a disgrace.
Justice Breyer needs to be let out more often. I affirm his choice to retire, but he was the beating heart of the People's Constitution- still is. God Bless, Stephen.
So nice of you to "affirm" his choice to retire 🙄
What an awesome man that demonstrates that age doesn't necessarily affect intelect. I love listening to him speak.
He is the judge who qualified to be a judge!
💯
@@beckyhenkel7917 Then why does he get so much wrong?
@@willmont8258
God gave us individual heads, to think for ourselves.
@@beckyhenkel7917 But he doesn't get to rewrite the Constitution to match up with what he wants and thinks it should say.
At this point, I think the most useful thing America can do is to serve as a warning to others.
Sadly, you are correct
Get out all your non-political nerd friends to vote this November…after watching ALL the new campaign ads.
Germany and Japan already did theirs.
guess it has to happen.
Oh we’re a warning for the rest of the world for sure
What an intelligent, measured, well-spoken man! A man who uses actual reason! Too bad 6/9 current justices on the supreme court can't be so smart!
Yes, and the three dolts lied about not overturning Roe. They should be disqualified. I especially resent Clarence Thomas. What a POS. I have no respect for SCOTUS now. Zero faith in their clearly partisan judgement. We need to vote blue all the way down the line. Get house and Senate to both be blue and force a Roe law as legislation as law of the land ending this red state bullshit. They won't stop with abortion. They will come for birth control, women's rights, and voting. This country wants to enforce an old dark twisted version of a right-wing Draconian 1950's mentality with women as no more than servants or walking incubators. Women now you must not only vote blue all the way down the line and get yourself a weapon and become a good shot to protect yourself. In the red states that have declared war on women seem to forget they love their guns and guess what so should women.
@annmariecassani8388 I'd love to know his real opinion of those 6.
They're smart, they're just trash.
Breyer is the one who isn't so smart.
@@willmont8258 : Do you assume yourself to be smarter ? Thrill us with your acumen and surpassing brilliance.
From the first day of law school, students are taught respect for the judiciary. I've tried cases for over 30 years. During that time, I've never questioned any judge's partiality. Sadly, within the last few years, I've gradually lost all respect for the maga majority on the S Ct, and I have nothing but suspicion for all trump appointees.
From my first day of conlaw, John Marshall's bullshit provided me with nothing but suspicion regarding the integrity of the whole damn system. After 30 years, I'm now sure its's all just pure bullshit. When you start with ego-based self-serving lies, that's all you ever have. (Marshall should have simply recused, as he was the one who started the whole problem over which he then sat in review, but noooo.) And from this, this, we get the principles of judicial review? Arising from an unmandated, illegally drafted "constitution:" that was created in sworn secrecy by the oligarchs of the day, that overthrew the legitimate government that existed at the time? What unsustainable crap. The entire society should be ashamed.
Yet those MAGA judges on the SC are closer to the true intentions and meaning of the US Constitution than ever before. You sound like someone who just wants to find a way around the Constitution because you don't like what it says.
In other words, you never questioned a judge as long as you got the outcome you wanted. But now that you don't get the outcomes you want, suddenly you "lost respect".
Maybe just maybe she doesn't have to be disappointed at judges because they follow the law..
She had reason to say so and you have no reason to judged her.@willmont8258
Someday, we will all realize that 2024 was a turning point for America. We just don't know which way it'll turn, yet.
I could listen to this guy talk all day. How can anyone disagree?
It doesn't matter how judges interpret a constitution in this day and age when so many, not just SCOTUS, are in the pockets of wealthy benefactors and corporations.
@kitkatkrissy - But that is exactly WHY we need justices who can interpret the Constitution intelligently and fairly, without bribery and other corruptions. And we need Justice Ginni booted off the Court!
@MossyMozart this is why we need term limits.
Exactly. Why are none of the retired justices calling out the disgusting corruption of the justices on today's Court?
@@DeepFleeceheart I don’t think term limits would solve the problem. Experience is valuable in both Congress and the Supreme Court. Corruption is not. The SC needs to be held accountable to basic ethics with clear guidelines. Politics should not matter and Justices should be held accountable by Congress through a special prosecutor. Members of Congress should be too busy to conduct a thorough investigation. I dream on.
I decided to leave a comment here because I think what many of us see and are concerned about is the seeking of wealth and luxury by members of the Court, which--in this narrow sense of which I am speaking here--makes it increasingly difficult to differentiate between them and the other two branches of government. While the justices themselves may only be accepting lavish gifts, such as expensive cruises to Alaska or a weekend at some exclusive hunt club, their spouses often round out the extravagance by making obscene amounts of money because their husband/wife is a member of the Court. Term limits seem to be the only viable answer.
Wouldn't it be nice if each Congress member was required to see this and write an essay on what they learned, entitled, How to Construct a Working Social Contract.
Every Democrat and 99% of Republicans would fail. The only contract that is ethical is NAP.
Dream on😊
You asking for the impossible. Can you imagine Taylor Green writing an essay?
I really like Justice Breyer. I could watch and listen to him for hours.
When a man of the intellect and compassion of Justice Breyer presents his opinions with such clarity, reason, and understanding, it is very easy for me to take what he says and immediately incorporate it into my philosophy of life (as it should be) without any further analysis. He has done all of the essential thinking for me. I would love to find one person in each field of human endeavor to do the same. I should become very wise, indeed.
Never allow others to think for you. Think for yourself.
Lack of analysis != wisdom
I would have loved to hear his opinion on the delaying tactics used by SCOTUS
he won't say because he considers a SCOTUS just former and he's clutching to the old image of the SCOTUS. he doesn't want to talk bad about his old job. He has declined to say things in the recent past. He shields their behavior by not calling it out. Weak complicity
@@johnnybgoode8104 - He seemed quite scathing in this interview to me, albeit in a classy way.
I have a feeling he would be appalled
The right to bear arms - quite different between bearing a musket vs bearing an AR-15
And" as part of a well regulated militia. " The gun nuts always forget that bit.
@@robinantonio8870 Scalia was very clear in holding that the first part don't provide the limitation you think it does.
@@robinantonio8870a lot are in militias.
@@jimslaton9057however Article 1 section 8 clauses 15 - 16 do provide a very specific limit, that as the man said the gun nuts like to omit. The founders while not able to predict the insane weapons like nuke, rocket launchers, tanks, and even ar-15s did spell out who had control when it comes to the welfare whole nation against enemies both foreign and domestic.
AR-15 is today's rifle of the militiaman.
When the Constitution was being written, a rifle or pistol could only fire one bullet at a time. You had to take the time to get out your gun powder, fill it into the gun, tamp it down, load a bullet and (in many cases) light a fuse. In other words, it took a fair amount of time to fire a gun.
If the Founders were told that there was a weapon capable of firing bullets as fast as a finger could pull a trigger, I highly doubt that they would have wanted everyone to have one without condition. It would be the equivalent of saying that anyone has the right to own a nuke today. Especially since they didn't even trust everyone to vote; only white men who owned land. That right there says everything about how much they trusted in the judgement and intelligence of the average citizen. Historical context informs the intent behind constitutional law. You have to look at the spirit as well as the letter of the law to a certain extent.
That being said, we shouldn't be afraid to make changes to the Constitution. It's not a holy document written in stone (thus the amendments). Laws need to evolve and change in step with society. It used to be legal to cut off someone's hand for stealing. There are a lot of things that are now legal/illegal because of how society's views have changed. A quote that I heard from Beau of the Fifth Column is "tradition is peer pressure from dead people." There's quite a bit of truth to that statement.
_"When the Constitution was being written, a rifle or pistol could only fire one bullet at a time. You had to take the time to get out your gun powder, fill it into the gun, tamp it down, load a bullet and (in many cases) light a fuse. In other words, it took a fair amount of time to fire a gun."_
When the constitution was written they had printing presses that required each page to be manually set and then pressed upon sheets of paper by hand and then compiled, by hand, into a book, newspaper or pamphlet. It was time consuming and costly. And if you wanted to send these periodicals to someone you had to load them onto a dispatch rider which would take considerable time to get to its eventual destination. I hope you can see where I'm going with this? 😉
_"If the Founders were told that there was a weapon capable of firing bullets as fast as a finger could pull a trigger, I highly doubt that they would have wanted everyone to have one without condition."_
Ohh but they *_were_* told that there were weapons capable of firing bullets in a rapid fashion! But you don't have to take my word for that all you have to do is search for these terms... "Puckle Gun", "Ghirandoni Rifle", "Duckfoot Pistol", "Nock Volley Gun" and "Cookson Repeater" and see for yourself just what kind of rapid fire weaponry was available to them at the time. Maybe This is why they said "the right of the people to keep and bear *arms"* and not "the right of the people to keep and bear *muskets"?* Our founding fathers were some of the most enlightened thinkers of their time, I am certain that they fully understood that the weapons of our time would be *_far more advanced and powerful_* than the weapons that they had. Just as their weapons were more advanced and powerful than *_their_* great grandfathers weapons.
Sorry but your opinion about the intent of our founding fathers does not match reality.
@@charliehammer8780 It seems like you got hung up on the gun example and failed to understand the overarching theme of my statement (context, intent, and change when necessary) Don't worry though, I knew someone would.☺️
@@jfree2737 Well the "gun example" that I provided proves that your idea about the "intent" of the founding fathers in regards to guns that could fire rapidly, like the kind we have today, is completely wishful thinking on your part. If they had AR15's or M16's in their day they _would_ have used them. Gleefully.
@@charliehammer8780
Translation: I think they would’ve considered advancing technology and gladly used modern weapons so therefore you’ve been definitively proven wrong because my opinion is just so much better than yours…
🙄🙄🙄 that’s quite the ego you got there…
Cue sexist comment in 3…2…1
@@sarahchristine2345 I have abundantly proven that this ridiculous idea that our founding fathers somehow had no clue that weapons of the future would be far more powerful than theirs is based in fantasy. Nothing in their writings or the history of this country support that insane hypothesis. It is revisionist history at its worst. Face it, the history of this country is the history of the gun. Our freedoms were *obtained* by the gun and they will be *maintained* by the gun *_far_* into the future. And I'm sorry to break this to you but yes, that does indeed mean military style weapons like the AR15 in the possession of the common citizenry. If you don't like this fact, you are free to move to any of the hundreds of countries around the world that do not have Second Amendment protections for their citizens.
Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you on the way out Sarah.
😉
Thank you Justice Breyer!!
Justice Breyer is a treasure.
Too bad he's retired.
No, he is not.
Good riddance.
When you think US is beyond saving, such a voice brings hope.
This man is a treasure. Increase the number of Justices; with people like him!
He doesn't want to uphold the US Constitution. He wants to rewrite it to get what he wants out of it.
Unfortunately, many of the current Justices were appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote.
Love and respect for Justice Breyer.
This is probably the best interview of Justice Bryer about his new book. Love the interviewer here. Good job.
You must be young. Amanpour is a legend. It annoys me how mainstream News channels let these senior reporters go because of age and replace them with young nitwits who can't ask relevant, probing questions.
@@cocofluff
That MAN interviewing Justice Bryer is NOT Christian Amanpour.
@@randibgood - But Walter Isaacson was chosen by Ms Amanpour for the show.
I am going to buy his book asap. Breyer is fascinating to listen to.
Justice Breyer is nothing short of brilliant, an amazing advocate for common sense. Have to wonder why it's called 'common sense' when so few SCJs of today's current Supreme Court, and politicians seem to have it.
When I listen to Luttig and Breyer, even Glenn Kirschner, it’s clear, at least in our not so distant passed, that we had sanity and rational thought sitting on the courts, or operating therein. Given what I see today, I wonder how we got so far a field.
How did we get so far a field? Mitch McConnell.
When we allowed Bush to steal Gore’s election. 🤬
The right spent a generation radicalizing the Court. McConnell was the end of a long project.
Past not passed😂
@@gaywizard2000 💯😋
I thought of you when I read this quote from "Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism" by Erwin Chemerinsky -
"[O]riginalism is an emperor with no clothes. Most constitutional law decisions inescapably come down to value choices by the justices or judges deciding the cases. Originalism does not avoid that at all. It only allows conservative justices and judges to pretend that they are following a neutral theory when in reality they are imposing their own values."
@metacapitalism5113 - Thank you for bringing that quote to our attention.
This person is trying to justify the very same thing himself, but he wants a different outcome, so he rationalizes a way to do it.
Justice Breyer's responses each deserve a pause.
We've got the best Supreme Court money can buy.
Excellent point. Especially, that POS, Clarence Thomas.
Just like we have the best democracy money can buy.
Best court yet, because they are actually upholding the Constitution for a change.
Yes, the Supreme Court is bought and paid for plus, I think they have been compromised with threats to them and their families.Trumplikkkans see this as a positive because they want Jim Crow again.
Unfortunately, this is truer than most pollyanna commenters here would be willing to either know or admit.
A brilliant, extremely wise and wonderful mind. Thanks for interviewing Stephen Breyer.
Wow, I like Justice Breyer... what an incredible speaker. This is the kind of patience, compassion and intellect you should demand from members of the SCOTUS.
Big love to Justice Breyer from the UK o/ o/ o/
I loved listening to this interview with Justice Breyer.
Where's the corruption question of the current Supreme Court? Are YOU alive or dumb?
He has the most soothing voice. He should record audiobooks!
Must have put you to sleep, eh? Where's the Clarence Thomas taking millions of $$$$$$$ to rule on cases before him/them question? Ethics rules, please!!!!!! JJJJeeeez,. Then U wonder why the state this countries in
🤣 That's what you took away from this interview?
I thought that too! Justice Bryer sleep app.
Soul touching.
I so wish we had Justice Breyer on SCOTUS! Thank you for a thoughtful and inspired read on the subject of the Supreme Court!
He retired at the right time unlike Bader-Ginsberg.
Actually we need him now. I wish he would not have retired.
@@suedavis3525 I question the "Life-time Appointments" set forth in the Constitution. At the time, the average lifespan for the US population was estimated at 34.5 years of age (several references on Google). The youngest Justices starting with President Washington's election was 32 years old. While President Washington did live into his 50s, I cannot imagine it was ever intended a Supreme Court (or Federal Justice) would be in office for several decades!
When I read the provisions for these Justices, the intention was to insulate them from the process of re-running for office which would make it a politicized position. We seemed to have run right through that stop sign!🛑 Time for term limits with a pension of sorts after so many years, then they can go write books, teach, or whatever seems appropriate to the time!😉🥰
He refuses to make these points in any wide-spread or popular forum.
@@mercy3219When average lifespan was so low, it was because a lot of children died, skewing the average down to 34. But people who lived to adulthood routinely lived into their 70s, especially if they had a comfortable lifestyle like a Supreme Court judge would.
What if the founder's "original intent" was that we today should not be bound by their original intent?
GO ahead and explain what their "original intent" actually was. (Aside from keeping all the money and power to themselves as rich white landowners.)
@JP-JustSayin - It was just so, Otherwise, they would not have provided a mechanism for change in the Constitution.
@@jimslaton9057boring
I’m flabbergasted with so much knowledge. Thank you
"Three years from now four years from now people will see that this textualism and originalism pushed to a pretty strong extreme where you can't use other things that it doesn't work because it doesn't take any account or enough account of the fact that women didn't have the right to vote when these words in the Constitution for the most part were written...Is going to undermine the values that this document sought to keep and work into the future. That it's going to make it more difficult for Congress to pass laws using sometimes abstract phrases so that you can adapt those laws more easily to a future with changing problems and changing circumstances."
It's too removed from modern day to be of ANY real value.
@@jimslaton9057that is why the founders crafted the Constitution to be a living document so that is could grow as the nation does.
@@silus73 They did not want a "living document" because that means no Constitution at all, because then judges can just read into it whatever they want and the Constitution becomes meaningless. This "living document" stuff is BS.
"more difficult for Congress to pass laws". Upholding the Constitution is what we want, not finding new ways to get around it.
@willmont8258 if it was not a living document, then black people would still be slaves, nor would they be able to vote, and neither would woman. If it were not. A living it would take freedom from over 2/3 of the citizens. No instead the Founders created a living document, and in it, they laid out 3 branches of equal power to safeguard it and help it grow.
Wow! What a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
Excellent.
Textualism is just a way to justify political decisions. The Leo Court says whatever to do whatever they set out to do
Exactly.
🤦♂️intrest balancing is just a way of justifying the government shaving away the rights of the people.
Textualism and originalism are a way to make sure your reading everything right to avoid making things up based on your feelings.
Judges aren't legislators they're not supposed to make up laws or act like activists to bypass the legislative process, its their job to read them properly. Its the legislative branch who writes laws and we the people can vote them in or out of office.
Everyone had a right to enjoy his/her older age etc., but why did this man need to retire?? I can’t imagine he’s at complete peace with that decision now. Term limits would take this terrible pressure off of these poor civil servants.
It has always seemed to me that in enlightened cultures, elders step aside sooner, rather than later. I assume this is done as a respect for the next generation, who are then able to take responsibility for the world in which they live. Of course, elders are wise, and should offer frequent advice and mentorship, as the justice is doing here.
The question is why DIDN"T RBG retire during Obama's presidency? She's like Biden and Trump, acting like God has guaranteed they will live to be 100.
i mean, he's not really retired, he's on this show and promoting his book and educating.
Ruth Ginsberg refused to retire and now the Supreme Court is solidly Christian nationalist majority.
Thanks for nothing, Ruth.
@@cocofluff- okay, suppose RBG had retired during Obama's presidency! She would likely have had to have done so in 2014 or earlier in order for Obama to have been allowed (by McConnell) to nominate her replacement AND have them approved! After all, McConnell prevented Obama's nominee (Garland) from being processed... in early 2016, so I doubt it would have mattered if RBG had retired during Obama's term.
Thank you Justice Breyer
"If they're so clear, why are they in the Supreme Court?"
Nowadays, it's because activists with connections want that law, the institution it empowers, or longstanding legal precedent declared unconstitutional. This isn't how it's supposed to work, but SCOTUS is granting cert to these cases, so apparently we're doing this now.
Awesome interview
The 1st part of the 2nd Amendment negates probably over 90% of gun ownership, but is never mentioned -why not? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, "well regulated Militia" means National Guard and military.
The bill of rights applies to individuals. This is settled. The framers had no need to grant the Army the right to bear arms. The federalist papers make it crystal clear.
@@quick65filly The Army doesn't have the right to bear arms; it's a necessity, and no longer applies when one leaves the Army. A well-regulated militia may have been farmers back then, but not today, where National Guard fills that need for each state. It does not make sense that it applies to any individual who is not National Guard.
@@davidrees1840 So you're fine then as long as gun owners belong to a militia. The bill of rights didn't apply to militia. Only individuals and it does not address the National Guard which didn't exist. A well armed citizenry was critical to the framers. For very good reason. A police state was not their vision.
@@quick65filly No, I mean that Nat Guard and Army obviously need guns, but everyone else would apply for permission to get a gun, like in Canada, Australia, etc. I find the language of the 2nd Am. very clear: "a well-regulated militia" means only 1 thing -it is not ambiguous or open to interpretation. A militia can be several things, but the US has 1 well-regulated militia per state, and it's the National Guard, and it's so well organized that they don't need to bring their own guns ;p
@@davidrees1840 Militias are individual citizens. The National Guard is government. The bill of rights did not apply to government.
What a great justice with exceptional honor and truth! Wow! How our present SCOTUS has fallen in their truth and values, shameful and so very sad!! 😢
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Breyer doesn't like the 2nd, so he lies about it.
Peaceful citizens in America? 😂😂😂
@@marcvilleneuve1889 you must be from another country or the ghetto. Don't believe everything you see on TV most of American is fairly chill.
@@willmont8258That was easy to gather when he mentioned the "400 million guns loose in America." His words of warning rang hollow in my ears--a man with his own agenda on this issue that is not in keeping with the Constitution. There will be no perfect justices--including Breyer.
@@mickey1849 400 million guns "loose in America", as though guns are living creatures with minds and intentions of their own. That shows Breyer for the biased silly goose that he is.
France and the US became republics around the same time and based on the same principles of separation of powers and fundamental human rights. France is now in its 5th constitution (including a constitutional court). Why doesn’t the US look to France as an example of institutional evolution?
This was a terrific interview. Thanks Walter.
Textualism reminds me of biblical literalism, that words written down hundreds or thousands of years ago are the final word on truth. It denies the living reality that happens all around us from generation to generation. The basic values of the Constitution (or the Bible), as Breyer says, still apply but we should apply those values as they pertain to today’s world. If a judge bases his judgment on how he thinks the original authors of the Constitution “intended” it, he may forget that the world has changed in ways that would be unimaginable to the founding fathers.
What you say is the only sensible way to look at any set of rules that persists as long as the US Constitution has. In the Christian Bible also, we see the helpfulness of the stories emerge when we find we can relate to them. I think we may have to expand the Court to return it to reality, or impose some sort of maximum term. Justices don't simply get wiser and wiser...sometimes they get senile.
We lose something when we surrender our humanity to systems that are unwilling to evolve and change but remain trapped in self-imposed ideology, but I think our problem is even deeper as self-serving interpretations through logically fallacious reasoning in support of tribalism now seems to rule the day.
You're right that they're similar, but the similarities don't stop there. The only thing more incoherent than biblical literalism is biblical non-literalism, at least in the context of clinging to the pretense that the bible is worthy of any kind of reverence or deference, and the same is true with regard to textualism and its alternatives. If we acknowledge that the bible is best viewed as a literary work or allegory that's open to interpretation, fine, but don't then start quoting scripture at me and act like I'm supposed to give a damn.
@@AristothielianWell said! 🍻
In both if one does not understand the time in which they were written they won't understand the meaning. That's humanities 101, understand the culture.
I love listening to Justice Breyer ,his voice of reasoning and such wisdom is something we need in the Supreme Court these days ! To much power attracts to much corrupted Supreme Court justices !
Laws need to come with an expiration date so they will updated regularly by Congress. Of course, for that we need a Congress that has not been hijacked by a handful of ignorant and irresponsible opportunists who incite mobs and pretend their dysfunction is strength.
You pretty much said it all. Especially the part about the current House members.
That Congress is relatively evenly split can be frustrating for partisans of both sides. Reforms to diminish extremism & rancor would include elimination of gerrymandered safe seats & open primaries, giving top 5 candidates to voters in general election for selection by ranked-choice voting.
When the Constitution was written, weapons of mass destruction were not as available. But I believe that INTERPRETATION is not the issue. SCOTUS just does whatever they feel like. Or maybe what their benefactors want them to do.
There are different legal philosophies in SCOTUS. People learned this in high school. Rejection of Roe vs Wade was bound to happen.
Class action the corrupt judges...
The big problem is that the Supreme Court never had ethics rules codified, not even stipulated! Therefore, the egregious actions of Justices, even to the extent of Thomas and Alito, though unethical and immoral, were not against any laws. BOO!
Yeah...
Thank you Justice Breyer !
What I worry about are judges becoming preoccupied with what was originally meant in a law while the house is burning down. In my opinion, they have a duty to look out for the best interests of this country. They can't just make it effectively legal to bribe government officials because they don't want to overstep their authority. It's their job to stand.
The current crop of rightwing scotus have no interest in being judicial officials. They are only interested in maintaining what is wanted by the rich, rightwing males aka the scotus owners.
The legislators had no problem passing laws against Swithblade jackknives. They are particularly lousy weapons. But Rebel Without A Cause, West Side Story, and The Cross and the Switchblade, provoke a nationwude ban on a fairly non lethal ARM. So military weapons are protected arms, while novelty jackknives are outlawed.
Exactly.
What are the arms of the 2nd? What is the "militia" arm that "the people" have a right to? By your standard, there is no arm that can't be banned.
Nailed it!
Thank you, Justice Breyer! The irony herein is that the conservative justices, who comprise the “textualist” interpretation, wouldn’t *dare* to interpret their beloved Bible in the same manner. If they did, Thomas & all the women would be forever subservient to men.
Please have the justice on again! I felt like I was back in a very good graduate seminar!
OMG it was a pleasure to listen to Justice Brayer. If only we had more Judges and Justices that think as he does. ❤
Thank you, Judge Breyer. Please do more. Your smooth, methodical voice is what we need in this country
What about the part “in a regulated militia”
The "Militia" is the people with their own guns. If Breyer doesn't understand that, he is a total incompetent.
Just one example of why state and federal government shall not impinge the right to bear arms.
So glad this wise man shares his wisdom with us. I hope we all take the time to consider his words
Something oft overlooked, our enemies also know we have more than one gun for every citizen. This does not mean we should let undisciplined people run around with guns. In fact, Regulation is of utmost importance to the usefulness of firearms. So textualism is an illusion.
We have laws that prohibit criminals from having guns, and those laws are almost never enforced.
The court isn't supposed to be "creating" a constitution or any other law. This is the problem with judicial review. If the constitution is not clear and explicit about some issue then the judiciary needs to stay out of it and defer to the legislature. Unfortunately instead these philosopher kings overturn laws they don't like by tying them to ill-defined constitutional provisions with specious logic. That's not democracy - representative or otherwise.
The legislature can't go beyond the constitution. The constitution is built to be vague and take care of ever changing facts that will always be new in the future.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that
those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity...will
respect the less important and arbitrary ones... Such laws make things worse
for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to
encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
greater confidence than an armed man.
Cesare Beccaria
Thank you for the interview.
We lost a great justice from our supreme court , I'm glad to hear him speak about our constitution because it gives me some reassurance that a justice like Justice Breyer is giving us reality .
Excellent Justice Breyer!! 😊
Pretty damn clear. But what else from this corrupt sc
The Militia is mentioned and defined in a few places in the US Constitution - Today, the 2nd Amendment is taken out of the context of 1790, when the US ARMY was tiny and composed largely of a matrix of state militias not armed by a federal government that was broke following eight years of war during the fight for independence from Britain. The Constitution (the LAW) is first mentioned starting in Article 1, Section 8, where the Militia is defined. There, it is ultimately under Federal control with the States allowed to select the officers. Today's so-called armed militias are not part of this system and are all outlaws. The 2nd Amendment was added sometime later to the initial draft of the Constitution to clarify the ownership of arms in the militia, of course. Today's 2nd Amendment devotees (Know that I'm an NRA life Member, too.) ignore the part in the 2nd Amendment that states first & foremost "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". It's about the Militia, which was the core of the Nation's Army at the time. That ended in the mid-19th century.
What exactly is your point ? Do you think the Bill of Rights is about individual or collective rights ?
@@RGRCD It's a Collective Right to assure an armed militia. The text is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It was to assure enough weapons for the National Defense. In typical 18th century style, the comma after "A well regulated Militia, ..." was used as we use a colon today, as defined by the Oxford English dictionary: "a punctuation mark (:) used to precede a list of items, a quotation, or an expansion or explanation."
As I pointed out, the US was NOT arming its Militia, which comprised the bulk of the ARMY at the time. The US was broke. Not until well into the 1790's and culminating with the Militia Act of 1808 did the Federal government exercise its obligation to assure that the Militia was armed. By the 1850's, the Militia was eliminated by being federalized as the National Guard. So, after that time, the 2nd Amendment was obsolete.
@@nonsibi1087 The 2nd amendment is not a collective right. It was and is an individual right. The Framers were not only concerned about foreign intervention, but also a government overstepping its bounds. James Madison, a lead author of the Bill of Rights, did not trust a large federal government and rightfully wrote that the Bill of Rights are unalienable rights. The Bill of Rights has zero to do with collective rights.
That's not how Scalia saw it in Heller, and that's not how the current court sees it in Bruen.
@@jimslaton9057 True! The Supreme Court justices brought in by right-wing influences, such as the Heritage Foundation, have predictably been onboard with expanded gun ownership.
At least we have one voice of reason out there.
Commonsense, times, pragmatism, choices and laws. Justices working together for the common good for all America.
I prefer Justice Breyer's way of thinking and wish he were still on the court now.
What argument exactly are you referring to because he sounds incoherent.
@@magouliana32 What incoherence exactly are you referring to because he sounds thoughtful.
@@magouliana32 Justice Breyer made lucid arguments against interpreting the Constitution on the basis of originalism / textualism. Please provide support for your claim that he was incoherent.
-Gary
Be well, be kind, and lead a good life
@@no-barknoonan1335 he argues that textualism and originality should be over looked by the SC, this is the reason we have the Supreme Court.
He argues the Supreme Court should look at the purpose the laws were made instead, this is subjective and will lead to chaos.
Then he says discrimination is good if it brings people together
😧.
There’s more it’s chock full of baloney.
You can’t say fire in a theater, you can’t say bomb on a plane. This guy has a valid point.
@diannelake969 - I was checking in at an airport when the agent next to me was questioning another passenger, asking if he packed his bags himself or left his luggage alone in the airport and the like. The guy was very confused and could not understand what the agent meant at all. She tried rewording a few times without getting anywhere. So, I turned to him to say that she wanted to know if a bomb got into his luggage. He was shocked, "NO!" and my agent whispered, "SHHHH! Don't say 'bomb' in an airport"
If you do and someone gets hurt as a result you could and should be held accountable for their injuries.
That doesn't give the government the authority to duck tape your mouth just incase you might yell fire in a theater.
Its still your right to say dumb stuff you just aren't immune to the consequences of those words.
My problem with either textualism or pragmatism is that either method is useless without a foundation. The “judges” are not very good on foundation: they are not historians or scientists or etc …. And yet their opinion is based on a this shakey foundation leaving the judgement on a shakey foundation. Lawyers (who become judges inevitably) are passionate about linguistic gymnastics. There are no judges with science or engineering or medical backgrounds even on staff. The way around ambiguity that judges inevitably rule on would have been to put into the constitution a 50 year constitutional conference to update the constitution based on the societal changes.
Well said.
Excellent..so true 👍
Justice Breyer is fundamentally correct in his critique of textualism, but seems not to realize (or, since he seems like a thoughtful man, simply neglects to mention) that this critique and its implications totally eviscerate any pretense of contractual government. If you recognize this and render judgments accordingly, fine, but let's not pretend they reflect anything more sublime than your own policy preferences. In other words, I don't want to hear any sanctimony about the inviolability of "rights" that you yourself acknowledge are contingent on the whims of whoever happens to be sitting on the bench.
Might not even be their policy preferences but just the flavor of the times.
Check out the majority opinion in Dobbs if you want to see how the courts look at things.
Justice Breyer is a genius! Pragmatism vs Textualism; his comments on the 2nd amendment, absolutely thought provoking!
Brilliant man! So glad he represented us in the Supreme Court and wrote this book. Congratulations Justice Breyer for all you do including this interview!
They risk no constitution at all
In fact it appears that possibly is their goal...
That would be better than the pack of lies that we have now.
When I read the Constitution I read the words as a way to decide what the founders thought.
What a fantastic mind Judge Breyer has. We were so lucky to have him as a justice.
The real question is; what is the intent of the words; and secondly, is that meaning frozen in time, or do we have to adjust our understanding of the intent to the reality in which we live today. Hence, we can’t escape context of the moment in terms of how we understand the constitution.
To properly decipher the constitution one must look at the plain text and the supporting contemporary writings of our founding fathers and also the history of the country which displays their intent in action. The "context of the moment", known in law circles as "interest balancing" is forbidden and it is not to be engaged in by any activist judges trying to twist the words of the constitution and the founding fathers to accommodate their wishful interpretations of our constitution.
to answer the second question: yes, UNLESS you amend the constitution per Article V.
The natural order to all things is change, even in human interactions. All things evolve. All things. So, we as a people, a society, a culture has changed over the short course of our government of 247 years. Of course it has changed, because, ALL THINGS EVOLVE. Including the law and how to apply it. You cannot apply laws meant for a people and time that just does NOT exist in any form whatsoever. That is idiotic and downright lazy. And that is the essence of Textualism, to keep the law in amber from the moment the ink dried. Ludicrous! Yes, Textualism is a bankrupt legal theory that needs to be sent to the dust heap of history as soon as possible. The job of the law is to apply it to the people as they exist in the present, not a past that does not exist anymore and if honestly looked at can only be discerned in fragments at best. Only the present exists and therefore the law need only concern itself with the present, but with an eye to the future, but with the just understanding and expectation to evolve.
I suppose "just understanding" is what you say it is?
if the times have changed, why can't Congress (and if necessary, the states) change the law?
@@jwil4286 1)We must first have a clear and decisive societal will as to where we are going and what we want. 2)We are, I think, beyond counting on Congress for this type of sweeping change that is necessary. We must have a Constitutional Convention and propose some fairly significant changes to the Constitution. We then need overwhelming majorities in nearly all the state legislatures in order to ratify the proposals from the Constitutional Convention and make the proposals become law.
@@mickey1849 maybe a constitutional convention (as spelled out in Article V) is the way to go. but if we don't have a "clear and decisive societal will as to where we are going and what we want," then what are you suggesting? march the army into any dissident states and force them to ratify these new changes (which is not only totalitarian, but would put the new changes on questionable legitimacy)?
just because one branch of government isn't doing its job doesn't mean another branch can just come in and do it for them. we have separation of powers for a reason (this is a big reason student loan forgiveness hasn't happened).
You're right. All things evolve. And the founders expected Congress and the states to update laws and the constitution as the times changed. If you're mad about certain rulings that interpret the constitution in a certain way, then maybe you should look to amend the constitution (like what happened after Dred Scott)
From which country is that retired Supreme Court judge? -- not American, surely... He does not have the tone that we hear from present Justices...
It's a shame that he doesn't realize the SC no longer makes the decisions, Harlan Crow and whoever else that owns the judges make the decisions now.
Remarkably clear, coherent and cogent. And your Constitution is equally remarkable. But I still am baffled by how your “SCOTUS” is so partisan, with built-in prejudices. A suggestion for your next Amendment: selection of Supreme Court justices must seek to avoid partisan affiliations. (See Canada, U.K.)
Partisanship was achieved by rich, rightwing males buying the scotus they wanted. They lost Nixon and their possible power, so have spent the time and $billions in order to never lose power again.
What a clarity of mind this outstanding judge has!
🤡
In the words of Teddy Roosevelt: "The Constitution is made for the people, not the people for the constitution!"
Excellent interview. Really got to the heart of the matter.
there was always something likable in Nino, and i think it was his aggressive, honest conviction in what he believed. but i agree with the former Justice: textualism is insufficient for justice, and can lead you astray.
the current SCOTUS used strict textualism to keep Donald Trump on the ballot. because Congress may remove Donald Trump's insurrectionist disability (note that they accept that Trump did engage in insurrection), therefore no State has authority to remove him from the ballot. how strange that it is Congress' job to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, when it precludes insurrectionists from holding (among others) "any office... under any State." it is the Federal Congress' job to enforce the eligibility of individual private citizens, to hold State offices -- this is what our textualist SCOTUS has made law by ruling that Trump shall be on the ballot in Colorado.
i think Nino would've joined the decision.
Being on the ballot is one thing, voting for him is another. I suspect people would write him in just as they do Mickey Mouse.
they didn't accept that Trump engaged in insurrection; they didn't even address that. they just said that 14A-S5 required Congress to enforce the first four sections (and even if Congress tried to retroactively do something like that now, it would likely be struck down as an "ex post facto" law, explicitly prohibited in Article 1 [what they COULD do is define insurrection going forward]).
Grateful he's no longer on the Supreme Court. Misinterpreting the Constitution as a personal power play epitomizes arrogance and paves the way for tyranny. The founders valued simple, clear language and individual liberty above all, believing our rights are divinely bestowed, choosing liberty's risks over tyranny's. The Bill of Rights was designed with broad protections, yet some twist these aims to rule, not govern, exploiting its intentions for control.
The anger in America is increasing on a daily basis. I fear violence is on the horizon.
Well said. Gives me hope.
Thank you, Justice Breyer!!! 💙💙💙
For what?
Originalism is just a way to cherry pick from an infinite orchard.
So if you don't like what the original intent was, then what is the basis of your interpretation? Your orchard really would be infinite, unlike originalism which is limited to what was intended.
@@willmont8258 it’s limited to what the originalist *claim* was intended by cherry picking from findings a hundred years before the constitution was written and ignoring the huge influence of the enlightenment on the founders.
@@markevans8206 How about using what the Constitution actually says and what those who wrote it said they meant, instead of substituting things the Constitution doesn't say and things they didn't mean?
@@willmont8258 so you mean that the right to bare arms is related to a well regulated militia? And that Jefferson intended a wall of separation between the church and state? And there’s nothing in the constitution about corporations being people and having the same rights with virtually none of the responsibilities? Like that?
@@markevans8206 Corporations are people for the purpose of civil liability.