Justice Breyer: You Don’t Want A Judge To Be Influenced By Popular Opinion When Judging A Case
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 бер 2024
- Stephen asks Retired Justice Stephen Breyer to comment on the influence of politics and public opinion on the rulings made by the U.S. Supreme Court, a topic that Breyer covers in his latest book, “Reading The Constitution,” which is available everywhere now.
#Colbert #JusticeStephenBreyer #ReadingTheConstitution #Books #JusticBreyer #SCOTUS
Subscribe To "The Late Show" Channel: bit.ly/ColbertUA-cam
Watch full episodes of "The Late Show": bit.ly/1Puei40
Listen to "The Late Show Pod Show" podcast: link.chtbl.com/Awagtx95?sid=yt
Like "The Late Show" on Facebook: on. 1df139Y
Follow "The Late Show" on X: bit.ly/1dMzZzG
Follow "The Late Show" on Instagram: bit.ly/29wfREj
Watch The Late Show with Stephen Colbert weeknights at 11:35 PM ET/10:35 PM CT. Only on CBS.
---
Stephen Colbert brings his signature satire and comedy to THE LATE SHOW with STEPHEN COLBERT, the #1 show in late night, where he talks with an eclectic mix of guests about what is new and relevant in the worlds of politics, entertainment, business, music, technology and more. Featuring bandleader Louis Cato and “THE LATE SHOW band,” the Peabody Award-winning and Emmy Award-nominated show is broadcast from the historic Ed Sullivan Theater. Stephen Colbert took over as host, executive producer and writer of THE LATE SHOW on Sept. 8, 2015. - Розваги
It’s not his experience, because SCOTUS wasn’t like this when he was on the court. SCOTUS has changed especially because of Trump and the Federalist Society.
That's what I thought too until I looked it up and he retired in 2022, which is pretty recent.
We have 2 ears and 1 mouth, because YOU are supposed to listen before you speak. This guy graduated university, then law school, then was a prosecutor, then a judge, and you dismiss his opinion after 22 seconds...
Clarence was on the court with him for a long time.
He can say a judge won't be influenced by popular opinion... he didn't say they're not bought by the rich.
he was on the court when trump was there so he is not telling the full story. It is political and he is being silent about it. Im sad to see him concede to such bs
@@friendly76Still. He’s been informed by decades in decent political climate, and only a few other years where the climate has shifted. Roe V Wade was after his time as well.
He has a very idealistic view of the court. To say politics doesn’t influence their decisions is just naive.
This old man literally sat there and told you that he doesn't care what we want or need. He doesn't listen to the "political temperature" of the day?? This is the GOVERNMENT not some fucking idea or philosophical debate. ABOLISH THE SUPREME COURT!!! We need a new constitution.
There's no reason to assume that he ALSO wasn't bribed and corrupt. As far as I can tell, every Supreme Court justice ever has been bribed. The onus of proof is on them, not me. They apparently decide federal law and none of them have EVER been criminally charged for acts done in court, which is statistically unlikely.
Would’ve loved if you asked him about the blatant corruption of 2 judges
He wouldn't have answered. This guy didn't really say much over this entire interview.
Ummm at least 5 judges on the SCOTUS; Uncle Clarence, Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh...and Amy Coney Island is just a religious nutjob and cult member
That is a taboo subject for everyone on SCOTUS. None of them would answer that. Colbert knows that. They don't say anything critical about the other people in their elite club.
@@a.johnson4210 No, he didn't Someone needs to tell him he's no longer on the SCOTUS and is allowed wider latitude in offering his personal views.
he got a book to sell 😂
I think he might be overly optimistic about the good faith of some of his colleagues
I agree and Im glad he retired because he seems too much in the center. Getting that liberal judge in there helps way more than him it is very obvious with his responses or lack there of.
This guy is on crack
he's lying for them because he's a hack.
To many excuses!
He was on the court with Clarence Thomas - he can't NOT have known what/ who Thomas and his wife were involved with!
It appears this gentleman's book is about how SCOTUS should be, not what it is.
Bingo.
It's just misdirection.
This old man literally sat there and told you that he doesn't care what we want or need. He doesn't listen to the "political temperature" of the day?? This is the GOVERNMENT not some fucking idea or philosophical debate. ABOLISH THE SUPREME COURT!!! We need a new constitution.
Hah! SCOTUS never was that, he's parading his fiction.
that is a common mistake among (true) conservatives. the problems arise when the messy real world doesn't conform to the theory
The new slate of justices do not view the court in this way. Breyer is trying to preserve a respect for the bench that has long since left the building and been stomped on the curb.
I couldn't have said it better I 100% agree
“Don’t want them to be influenced by popular opinion” - I’d rather them be influenced by that than by being bought by billionaires with lavish gifts and vacations. Neither are desirable, but the latter is actually happeneing, the former is theoretical.
@@queenannsrevenge100they definitely aren’t being influenced by popular opinion since their opinions aren’t popular, and they represent a party that is constantly losing the popular vote. Tyranny of the minority
This old man literally sat there and told you that he doesn't care what we want or need. He doesn't listen to the "political temperature" of the day?? This is the GOVERNMENT not some fucking idea or philosophical debate. ABOLISH THE SUPREME COURT!!! We need a new constitution.
When Alito threw out 50 years of women’s rights based on 13th century legal reasoning, I don’t think he was arguing the law or the Constitution. He started with his religious beliefs and worked backward from those to find a justification for the ruling he wanted to issue.
Read roe v Wade. It did not even pretend to be constitutional.
@@michaelschaefer1904 I'd ask you to present your evidence, but I'm not a proctologist.
@@michaelschaefer1904 - Roe depends on the 14th amendment. The argument is that, in restricting what a woman can do with her own body, Texas was denying McCorvey of her liberty guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
The argument was that slavery - which was explicitly the subject of the 14th amendment - was as much about bodily autonomy as anything else.
So, yeah, it was constitutional, and pretending it wasn't is gaslighting.
@@gus.smedstad Great argument! Thank you!
Totally nonsensical allegation
I think even the average person can understand that the Court is supposed to make fair and impartial judgment independent of the public opinion. But when you have a group of people / organizations that already have not just a finger, but a whole hand and foot on the scale, the people already know it's not going to be fair and impartial. Effective or not, the public outrage is an attempt at rebalancing.
Well said.
Exactly this. And that's where we see how much SCOTUS is cut from the people. They don't mind the bribes and the political influence, but when you have to listen to popular opinion, they get all haughty and academic. Asshats
"SUPPOSED TO" says it all.
Well said!
Ironically public opinion is not fair nor just. That's why republicans and conservitards keep investing in public opinion fakefluencers.
If the whole Court were what he says, they should be a lot quicker with telling trump "NO!!"
This old man literally sat there and told you that he doesn't care what we want or need. He doesn't listen to the "political temperature" of the day?? This is the GOVERNMENT not some fucking idea or philosophical debate. ABOLISH THE SUPREME COURT!!! We need a new constitution.
I still believe they will, but April 25th can't come soon enough.
He’s in complete denial!
By their bribes, shall you know them.
The court has already proven it is corrupt.
He gives his colleagues too much credit
Some old white guys believe that no one is evil, and some of those people end up on the Supreme Court hawking their books and worldview about how evil doesn't exist.
if politics has nothing to do with it, explain how cases with 50+ years of precedent have been overturned with the aid of the new justices? Roe, Chevron, and coming up: Obergerfeld, Brown v Board, and the Kasmerick abortion of a case...
Read roe v Wade. It did not even pretend to be constitutional. A pro-choice former dean of Yale law school agrees.
@@michaelschaefer1904 yes, and as Justice Alito pointed to, is not part of a 17th century witch hunters understanding of privacy rights. It would have been pertinent for him, and the other 5 justices that concurred with him, to have pointed that out during their confirmation hearings... oh, wait - they specifically said that it was settled law, the law of the land, stari decisis twice over... there is a reason the public trust in the supreme court is as low as it has ever been
So called liberal judges vote this way and so called conservative judges vote that way. Then they justify their votes with fancy words. It's always politics.
The discrepancy. Regardless if the judges would serve with no political agenda or not, 75% of the Americans not believing in it is a huge problem.
That should worry anyone,..
This old man literally sat there and told you that he doesn't care what we want or need. He doesn't listen to the "political temperature" of the day?? This is the GOVERNMENT not some fucking idea or philosophical debate. ABOLISH THE SUPREME COURT!!! We need a new constitution.
The guy’s utterly out of touch: his ‘assurances’ make me even worried for USA’s democracy
Justices are not chosen by people with integrity. So why would we expect them to have integrity?
Okay, but Clarence Thomas has egregiously taken advantage of his position. His focus is skewed. They all are.
Exactly!! This old man literally sat there and told you that he doesn't care what we want or need. He doesn't listen to the "political temperature" of the day?? This is the GOVERNMENT not some fucking idea or philosophical debate. ABOLISH THE SUPREME COURT!!! We need a new constitution.
Sadly, this is a point that would be a waste to bring up to him, as he wouldn't reply. I hope he sells a lot of books, because otherwise this interview was a waste of air time. No malice intended. But it's frustrating cuz I was hoping to learn something or gain some new insight. Like a guy in a police interrogation: "No comment."
The current judges I don't believe stick to a way of interpreting the constitution and law as Breyer suggests. But they do adhere to their own personal biases and who provides them yacht vacations.
Some (two?) of the judges, yes.
Definitely. Especially since most of the new right wing appointees explicitly have ruled AGAINST what they in hearing has told in beforehand. They’re flip flopping like crazy. The deceit!!
They're not upholding former decisions, they're using a Bizzarre new historical approach, letting them cherry pick anything they like from any era of history, including before the United States Constitution was enacted.
Different court now. Rose tinted glasses me thinks.
Distressingly vague on important questions.
And that's how you get on the bench.
Im a little disappointed that Steven didn't bring up a question about recusal and huge gifts to justices in a serious way--- knowing that the former judge would've dodged it cowardly.
"The climate of the era"? C'mon, Judge, does that mean anything right now? The climate of THIS era is pretty appalling, and not something that many of us want to see codified in law.
Breyer's book sounds like a defense of HIS method. However, IMHO a handful of the present Supreme Court justices are definitively NOT choosing to use similar methods. And their motivations do not seem as defensible as Breyer's may be.
kinda skipped over that whole corruption bit in the scotus
That's not the interview was about. It focused on whether SCOTUS should make decisions on the literal word choices in a 1700s document to decide 2024 cases. And he is right - decisions (and the Constitution) should reflect the growth and maturity of society, including modern context.
There are 4 judges who dont adhere to his way of thinking.
I'd be happy with judges who understand they are supposed to make decisions that are best for the country, and not best for their bank accounts.
Not as many of them around as you'd hope, I hear.
He doesn't even believe in that, he believes in following the law, which in many cases actively harms the country. Hell, having SCOTUS as it currently exists harms the country. They're not elected, they routinely screw up, they don't write law, they serve for life, they're corruptable and largely unaccountable. Federal judges should ALSO not serve for life.
Breyer seems very wonderful on a personal level, funny and charismatic, but I must say I am a bit disappointed in his answers. There’s much on stake now these times. I would have loved to hear some actual stands on things,..
he's a coward and a hack
Justices don't take actual stands on things. They think in terms of narrow rulings which primarily affect the specific case before them. At least, that's how they used to think. That changed when O'Conner ruled in favor of W because she thought him cute. Jeffrey Toobin's book, The Nine, is a better read than Breyer.
Sorry, the former Judge is a coward who only wants to promote his book.
💯 And why should I buy a book from a guy who won’t even go out on a limb and say the president doesn’t have absolute immunity?
He is trying to get in on the 3rd act before we go to he epilogue. Ww3
Yep… and in a very cheap way too 😂
Exactly 💯
This old man literally sat there and told you that he doesn't care what we want or need. He doesn't listen to the "political temperature" of the day?? This is the GOVERNMENT not some fucking idea or philosophical debate. ABOLISH THE SUPREME COURT!!! We need a new constitution.
Judge Clarence Thomas just ruled BREYER is out of order unless he ponies up a nice two week vacation for CLARENCE and his malignant tumor GINNIE-BABE on St. Barts in the Caribbean.
and the Bidens in China...
THIS justice needs his butt glued to the chair while he watches Senator Sheldon Whitehouse expose THE SCHEME on UA-cam video, step-by-step, with graphics, at a high school education level.
This old man literally sat there and told you that he doesn't care what we want or need. He doesn't listen to the "political temperature" of the day?? This is the GOVERNMENT not some fucking idea or philosophical debate. ABOLISH THE SUPREME COURT!!! We need a new constitution.
He should’ve asked about the corruption of the court, Thomas being the most egregious example, from his Insurrectionist wife, to his amassing over $70 million from a government salary. He wouldn’t answer it, but the question should’ve been asked
wanna talk about how much the Pelosis have amassed? or Fauci?
@@bademoxyGet to the part of your fanfic where Donald kisses you in the moonlight
@@bademoxy Fauci is NOT super wealthy (and is retired btw 🙄). And insider trading & an extremely wealthy husband are why Pelosi is wealthy. Thomas is wealthy through billionaire “gifts” buying his verdicts.
@@bademoxy Pelosi and Fauci do not have lifetime positions on the Supreme Court.
@@bademoxyNot pertinent here, whatsoever.
Colbert may be a comedian, but he is also very knowledgeable and intelligently articulate.
That's what good comics are.
@@regisdixitmr comedy can explain how Epstein-who's on flightlist he's been named-"killed himself".
He's assuming the new judges are equally qualified.
Yes I do. The court is political now. We need a higher level of courts. We need term limits at the supreme court. They pick and choose which cases to hear. They interpret the Constitution according to their own beliefs. Some take money from moguls to get them favors in court rulings and we can't get rid of them unless they choose to step down.
I really like it when Stephen has on guests of substance rather than always entertainment folks plugging their latest projects.
This did feel like another guest plugging their project though. The way he kept picking up that book and waving it around while refusing to acknowledge the reality of the court today gave me a bad taste in my mouth.
*I'm 100% certain that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would **_NEVER_** fall under corrupt influence!* ( _that's sarcasm for those who don't recognise it_ ).
John Oliver did a great bit on Thomas and SCOTUS ethics.
Hoping achieves nothing. Breyer is living in the past. SCOTUS will never be "judged" fair and impartial by the American public, ever again.
Their rulings in HELLER & Citizens United ensured that.
Well done Mr. Colbert! … Total professionalism and Justice right in your face and yet you ask hard questions respectfully. Well done sir!
He's got a point, but I still think Congress should pass a law setting term limits for SCOTUS Justices. And for Congress as well, but that's a different story.
Judges - Yes. They could have "short" terms (5 years?) and rotate people in from (and back to) the appeals court. (Cuz they're not ancient and washed up after 5 years!)
In a lovely, perfect world those elected would, without hesitation do the right thing. Today, it’s all about “what’s in it for me”. Oh, and the last thing that they would do is self impose term limits on their ability to grab and scoop to their heartless desires.
Really a point, supreme Court is inherently political, conservative advocate just come out in city out of dinner with Court justices to discuss cases,
Oh, sorry, that assumes judges with integrity. It's proven that we have judges who have been purchased, and who have complete disdain for women
5:50 "And you'd better do that job well and like it." OR WHAT? Nothing happens to them if they don't do the job well! There's no accountability for them. There are no consequences for their less ethical actions. Any rules put in place for judges conveniently don't apply to the Supreme Court. An honor system doesn't work if the people in it have no honor.
NOTHING ABOUT CORRUPTION?! REALLY?!!!
I don’t know if this man ever met Thomas Clarence.
"I'm not here to comment on matters of law, I'm just here to publicize my book."
level the playing field :
PACK THE FRIKKIN COURT ASAP !
Judges using case from a time before our country from a country we seperated from to take away our freedom can't be taken seriously.
He’s the type that kisses men on the cheek to greet them
@@KyleRittenhouseIsGuilty. OMG! The HORROR! Seriously, though. I also saw him lean in as he shook Stephen's hand. After watching him lean close to Stephen during the interview it confirmed what I'd suspected, in my opinion. He's very hard of hearing. He leaned closer during the handshake because he couldn't hear him over the applause and the band. Even during the interview, to still have to lean closer let's me know. This isn't just a random guess on my part. I've been an ASL Interpreter and worked with thousands of Deaf and Hard of Hearing people for 40 years. I see the "give aways" .
How about our justices who are influenced by our darkest foreign adversary ?
I am curious as to what his take is on the influence of the Federalist Society on the court and the impacts that influence is having.
what's more useless than one supreme court justice? 9 supreme court justices.
The only SCJ smart enough to retire.
Imagine what a president can do to the people who don't vote for them! Immunity is bogus
But thats NOT what has been happening in the current SCOTUS.
He didn’t answer the question. He is like a professor quoting the medical text and not seeing humanity. The court as it is today, with 3 judges who shouldn’t be there, is political. If not why couldn’t he address that?
The mere act of Sen's shutting down one president's nomination for a chance to nominate their own is political. Our nation's population barely made a sound about it.
@@rainmanjr2007 yes, but the dems in congress should have done something. I once heard that Obama could have appointed a justice because the senate waited, the constitution says the senate can approve or say no, Obama should have pushed it. But dems want to play by the rules which the GOP doesn’t abide by. When Biden wins a second term they should expand to 11 or 13.
I'm not a big Obama fan. He also prosecuted nobody for the 2008 Treasury theft, led by the CEO of Goldman-Sachs, or VP Dick for war crimes. That's how we wound up with Dandy Don.@@wayneriley7367
Has this guy ever heard the expression "cognitive bias"?
Soooo, he's just here to hawk his book, not to answer any substantial questions. Very disappointing.
You could read the book for deep answers; check it out of the library if you're not into paying for things. Or watch again. He did, in fact, answer the questions asked. He was a good and fair SC Justice.
(Edit for mistypes.)
Justice Breyer, Thank you.
What about the judges who use text when convenient and background and precedent when it supports their world view? And what about those taken care of by billionaires?
It USED to be about how they adjudicated. Now it's all about getting money, favors and party lines. This guy no doubt was a good justice in a different court, but this isn't scotus anyone
“We’ll be right back…with Justice Thomas!”
🤣🤣🤣
Sure you misheard; try again😂
So the court recently had to change to undo 14th amendment section protections? I mean, they basically undid a part of the Constitution!
Section 3
This guy has his head in the sand. Lawyers everywhere are increasingly shocked at the courts behavior and bizarre logic in rulings. It may not have been like that years ago but it definitely is now.
Judges and Justices who are appointed through political channels are more likely to filter “their” laws and interpretations of the US Constitution in terms of biased perceptions to render skewed judgments.
Right on Judge Breyer👍👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
I do not have confidence in our supreme deep dish Court anymore.
Trump should be held accountable
That whole faction, yes.
nah get over it
@@arbor-sq4jklmao, stay on the internet demon
I disagree. I think Trump should be left alone and used as a lesson, then fix the constitution to point to laws with definitions and teeth for unconstitutional actions. Trump showed us everything wrong with the constitution, the law, the office of the POTUS, the electoral college and on and on by the actions he took flaunting everything in the face of good will and intentions. Let God judge him and let us not make him a martyr to his sycophants.
Mr. Justice Breyer, your first answer was as confusing as some of the SCOTUS rulings.
I got the strong impression that Colbert was also struggling to grasp his mindless waffle too.
I think Thomas and Alito have skewered impartiality and have brought politics into their decisions
THIS justice needs his butt glued to the chair while he watches Senator Sheldon Whitehouse expose THE SCHEME on UA-cam video, step-by-step, with graphics, at a high school education level.
Justice Breyer desperately wants to believe that the Court doesn't deserve to lose the confidence and respect of the American people, but it does. We're not lawyers, but we're also not stupid. We can see the Senate confirmation hearings where nominees perjure themselves to gain a lifetime appointment, then immediately set to work making The Handmaid's Tale a nightmare reality.
We can see the Court _explicitly state_ that an opinion doesn't fit with established precedent and shouldn't be considered in future cases. *_How,_* Justice Breyer, can that be the product of a difference of legal interpretation? They didn't interpret what came before and they want no interpretation to occur after them! We're not lawyers, but we're not stupid. These draconian rulings are obviously not a product of interpretation; SCOTUS knew the ruling they wanted, couldn't make a plausible claim to reach it legitimately, so they flat-out say "this is a one-off, don't scrutinize it, thanks."
I mean, for fuck's sake, the Dobbs decision cites pre-scientific nonsense from before the United States was even founded as a country. There is absolutely no legitimate, sincere method of legal interpretation that justifies such an ass-pull. Again, not lawyers; not stupid. It's honestly *so offensive* for Breyer to tell people "no no, don't believe what you're seeing and hearing, SCOTUS is a healthy, august legal body experiencing a lively difference of legal opinion!" The fuck outta here.
Well said and accurately reasoned
Exactly right!
Hey Breyer, thanks for Citizens United, that worked out great!
Breyer was one of who voted against Citizens United
@@mariannefinkel correct he dissented. it was 5-4
Thomas is influenced by RVs.
Not nearly influenced enough by John Oliver's offer though.
Maybe that's what it use to be like, but is he paying attention to what is going on now?
And when they don't do the job well?
In theory, judges are supposed to be impartial. What happens when they're not? Also, by saying he values pragmatism over textualism, that is staking out a position, is it not? That is a political position. Therefore judges are politicians in robes.
What happens when they are not? Look at that disaster in Florida in real time setting herself up to be disbarred for incompetence.
That used to be true. It isn't anymore.
So why does Clarence get to complain, and take money, he needs to be rousted out now!
Whew! What a relief! Here i was all worried he'd refuse to say something substantive or unequivocal.
States rights are not only for southern states
Boy did Colbert ever tiptoe around asking Judge Breyer any hard questions!
Frontline has a great Dr documentary on the supreme Court called supreme revenge. Highly recommend
Great follow up question.
So glad this book was written.
His retirement let the scotus go over the edge.
Or maybe it was planned that way.
In what sense? The composition of the court is the same as it was before he left. Justice Jackson took his place. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement swung the court further right as he was replaced by Justice Kavanaugh, if that’s what you’re talking about.
@louaug27 that may be what I was thinking if, thanks. It feels like the scotus has gone to shite, and the people in the USA arnt too bothered by it (how it looks from outside)
He avoided all the main questions.
I find it hard to believe that Justice Beer deserves the amount of good faith being given to him.
I love that Colbert Really wants to Understand the way judges decide how to judge. He Cares. And I'll bet he reads Breyers book.
What a smart guest!
Yeah bullchit, its a political court. Well about 5 of the justices anyway.
What a class act.
Can he weigh in on the Heritage Foundation?
Great guests, thank you so much.
I understand why he was pressured to step down from SCOTUS, but damn, we lost a most profound voice on that Supreme Court without him.
Man is spoken like a learned grandfatherly scholar of legend
Too many people have already decided. I’m doubtful that his book will succeed in changing enough minds.
Illegitimate court
Chief Justice Colbert had to remind the Judge that standing up in the Ed Sullivan Court of Appeals at the end of questioning was not proper procedure 😆.
Now this is a guest i would happily invite to my favourite coffee-shop and spend the day conversing on ALL sorts of subjects. I don't have the same confidence in the probity of the current Trump-influenced Justices, but I am confident that, given enough time, a majority of the Court will find the appropriate balance between LAW and political affiliation once again.hank You Justice Breyer and Stephen for an intelligent discussion of The LAW!
Steven, I wish you had asked him whether you think a justice should recuse himself if his wife is working with someone before the court or if he had received a gift over $25 if he should be a sitting judge before that person? I know your job is to be funny but, in addition, you really do help shed light on our world through humor. Was it Will Rogers who was that political humorist? You sort of remind me of him. Thanks for being funny and thanks for not dying from your appendix.
I love how he answers each question with what sounds like a prepared speech designed to sell his book... :)
Let him drink the coffee Stephen ☕️ He needs to stay hydrated 😂 Now you know the odd/awkward things I focus on during talkshow interviews.
I'd much rather have judges be influenced by popular opinion than by who can afford to buy them the most stuff.
He might not have answered Stephen's questions, but Justice Breyer's previous opinions, even-handed application of the law, and views on reform lead me to believe he might have been the one dissenting Justice on the Insurrection definition. He isn't typically a strict textualist; he's an avid reader (not just a writer!) of Constitutional history & the extrajudicial correspondence of those who framed that document, as well as the political climate/grievance a law was meant to address, do factor into his decisions. He was always cognizant of the effects a ruling might have, especially unintended circumstances.
What I appreciate about him is how he doesn't have a critical word against those he worked with but with whom he did not always agree. He also supports Term Limits & has expressed support for an Upper Age limit for the Supreme Court Justices. Pragmatic & thoughtful...he's considered one of the Liberal Justices, but that was more an indication to HOW he would form his opinion, not necessarily WHAT that opinion would be.
And man, what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall were there ever an opportunity for Justice Breyer and J. Michael Luttig to hang out, sip a good whiskey and talk about the Constitution.