Extended interview: Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

[@annsmith7207]

Strongly disagree. There are Supreme Court justices who -- at this juncture -- are not forming opinions based on impartial and objective Constitutional law. Maybe that was true while Justice Breyer was on the Court but it certainly isn't now. It is an alarmingly divisive disintegration of the highest Court in the land.

[@kellythompson3865]

Ya!! What you said!

[@mishagofman1706]

because you do not like their rulings...???

[@Tere225]

9-0 on trumps disqualification case.

[@AuroraColoradoUSA]

What country are you from? He was always easy to predict in controversial cases, nothing "impartial" or "objective" about him in his time on the court.

[@generallegath974]

"Impartial and objective Constitutional law?" Pray tell, what is "impartial and objective," because their opinions seem well-reasoned to me, generally. Of course, there's the odd case where I think they were wrong or that a reading of a Constitutional clause was contrived, but that is not the majority.

[@jonmars9559]

I wonder what his opinion is about Court Justices accepting lavish gifts from billionaires and don't recuse themselves when ruling on said billionaire's cases?

[@bizygirl1]

I think he’s explaining it right here as he discusses Dobbs

[@bmarron100]

He is deluded about judges being appointed with no regards to political Partys.

[@billmyer2990]

looks to have some juice in his background

[@stormtrooper88]

agreed... you could see him dripping with arrogance. one hell of creepy vibes from this guy.

[@tomolegend6128]

+1

[@quesadilla79]

Hack is selling a book on his delusion 💸

[@Einstein9201]

@@stormtrooper88 Breyer's literally the most relatable, down to earth of the lot.

[@pageek3487]

1:00 would love to see what they cut out of his response here.

[@JaneGiesbrecht]

@[LIVE] FOX NEWS | The Five 3/26/2024 PLEASE DO NOT LET JAUN WILLIAMS BACK ON YOUR SHOW. He is NO chief political analyst.

[@kellythompson3865]

It's Juan.

[@rogerdorsey7823]

STATUTES HAVE BEEN BREACKED DENYING THE RULE OF LAW AS IT APPLIES TO CONSTITUTION.

[@igorlobkovenko9480]

Cases that are very impirtant in terms of jurisorudence have been overturned. Plessy v Ferguson was the precedent that upheld segregation for about 56 years

[@monicagakdut6521]

I agree that why America is a number one a round the the world we have good laws, together sticks in constitution ,freedom democracy no bod above the law

[@fortyseven1832]

The constitution isn't open to interpretation. It says what it says period.

[@EternalEyeofRa]

It wouldn't survive without interpretation.

[@bizygirl1]

You’re obviously not a scholar of law

[@mjdelaney1]

@@EternalEyeofRa Don’t confuse him with anything requiring an intellect

[@debraquarles3464]

@@bizygirl1 There has to be some interpretation to apply it to contemporary issues. There are situations now that weren't even imaginable when it was written.

[@lucyrodriguez3858]

It has to be INTERPRETED and the the judicial branch is entitled to do so, but unfortunately right now it has become political or fanatic…. God help us.

[@iMintyNinja]

"its your world now" at the end there.. who's he kidding?

[@randyblank2790]

So we're not a republic. We need no more legislative judges!

[@1ROB82]

Notice he looks away from her when he says “it’s inaccurate that the courts are political” of course they are! Just look at what’s happening right now.

[@AuroraColoradoUSA]

What country are you from?

[@truth1013]

She's so wants him to say that conservatives are bad and Liberals are good. Her bias is atrocious

[@truth1013]

Your freedoms are much more secure in a conservative Court that's a fact

[@richyp64]

Justice Breyer, can you give us your definition of a woman?

[@harveywilkinson2432]

Justice Alito, can you give us your definition of a human child? Hint: if you can stick it in a freezer for 50 years, it's not a human child.

[@bdadolph]

He should not have to that is for a biologist

[@williamz8330]

I prefer this definition from Bryan Caplan: Literally, a woman is an adult human female. But to be nice, we extend honorary woman status to biological males with strong gender dysphoria. While this initially seems odd, we’re just treating the word “woman’ the same way we’ve long treated the word “parent.” Literally, a parent is a human who has sexually reproduced. But to be nice, we extend honorary parent status to people who adopt kids. Strictly speaking, they’re not “real parents.” But it’s rude to say so, and even ruder to make a big deal out of it.

[@harveywilkinson2432]

@@williamz8330 Defining a woman as an "adult female" is a classic tautology. Useless as a definition.

[@williamz8330]

@@harveywilkinson2432 it’s the Oxford dictionary definition. Most definitions are circular because there is no one thing that scientists universally agree defines this. It’s usually some combinations of chromosomal makeup and the ability to reproduce. However you can already see this is easily shattered by modern scientific observations

[@jotac87278]

He had a really good discussion with Antonin Scalia about the interpretation of the constitution. Two very different ways to interpret the verbage.

[@ecmarks438]

I still remember Tim Russert's conversation with Scalia, O'Connor and Breyer about the Supreme Court. It was fascinating to hear their approaches, the value of the Constitution remaining faithful to the founders' basic principles. At one point Breyer mentioned that he was interested in international courts and their rulings on issuedsthat the SC were condidering. Scalia made plain that he thought ONLY the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws should be considered as pertains to the issue at hand. O'Connor made the point that the Constitution has to consider where society also views laws since the Constitution's first sentence starts with "We the people". I personally have viewed the Constitution as a framework that sets a foundation to deal with societal change over time and why the founders were careful not to be absolute in the wording.

[@willpulera7303]

What Democrats did to him is disgusting.

[@geargeekpdx3566]

Do you still earn rubles or do they pay you in livestock when you're an intern?

[@williamz8330]

What did Democrats do to him exactly?

[@joegrabowski9261]

Typical Liberl.

[@radensmom]

I disagree. As a textualist you also take into consideration ALL of the Federalist Papers and the personal letters of the founders discussing the textualism that they intended and that is upheld in our founding documents. We interpret statutes and the Constitution based on all of those things recorded by our founders and this is what the majority of the conservative justices are upholding in their textualist interpretation of the Constitution. It's Justice KJB that isn't interpreting the Constitution in the textualist way based on original interpretation of all information. And the lawmakers in question are not at issue when the outcome and result was remedied and it clearly holds those rights to the STATES and there should be NO FEDERAL law like that on the books. This is returning consistency to the application of our Constitution. The States must set their laws and the feds need to stay out of it. That's not up to the judge that is REQUIRED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL!

[@gregsLyrics]

Well said. Maybe you are a future judge in the making. To me, it is crazy to think there is no bias in judicial decisions. My clients have suffered greatly at the hands of decisions. Overturning them is even more difficult. I am working on an AI model as a basis for judicial decision making. Justice Bird would be proud to embrace the endeavor. Anyway, just wanted to praise your intellect and valued opinion.

[@jadadsr.8351]

What the f is this man talking about?

[@brianray2614]

Not impressed..

[@gilroylibbs2947]

This man is wrong, he is SUPPOSED to go BY THE TEXT!! Now, if the text does somehow end up to "fail the test of time", the Founders put in a PROPER FIX for it, it is called, an AMENDMENT!! "activism" is NOT a LEGAL OPTION. Having a "rule book" that can be altered on a whim by a "select few"?? THAT is the REAL DANGER!!! This guy's attitude scares me.. HE HIMSELF seeks to decide how to "change" the Constitution, did he not read, and grasp that this is what PEOPLE choosing to amend it, is for?? I see NO WHERE in the document, where it gives the Sitting Justices such power. WOW!!

[@gilroylibbs2947]

This guy seems to ignore the FACT.. the Constitutionally LIMITED POWERS of the Feds, are so WE THE PEOPLE, or STATES, can choose.. not 9 guys in black robes. HIS way of thinking cut "we the people" out!!

[@ecmarks438]

@gilroylibbs. That is your opinion "go by the text". No where within the Constitution nor in the founders writing is there any statement that the text is absolute.

[@generallegath974]

@@ecmarks438 It is absolutely not prescribed that judges can simply conform the Constitution to what they believe it ought to mean. The fact it's put into words carries with it an implicit timelessness. Judges are meant to *interpret* the Constitution; that means interpret what the text means. They're not there to draw up a new Constitution.

[@ecmarks438]

@@generallegath974 textual interpretation is not cast in stone. Otherwise looking at the text when written historically this country would only allow muskets instead automatic rifles. This "textual" interpretation suits the conservative ideology not what the general consensus of society finds acceptable. For decades all, I've heard is activist judges are bad, and this SC goes out of its way to heel to conservative talking points. As I said where does the Constitution say that the judiciary should apply the Constitution and Federal statutes as written rigidly.

[@generallegath974]

@@ecmarks438 That's not accurate at all. Originalists acknowledge that the text could be applied to new phenomena. The Second Amendment for example, which is the one that you cited, does not say "keep and bear muskets," so that's a terrible example for your point. It says "keep and bear arms." The founders and others understood that new technologies and circumstances would arise. Originalists don't believe that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to phones simply because phones weren't around in the 1790s. Your view of originalism is an uninformed caricature, not a serious critique.

[@beerich2117]

Leftists are leftists!

[@vbachman6742]

This isn't the same court as in his day. He's delusional.

[@scotth5357]

1 minute in, BS.

[@Sonyag1]

God bless Justice Breyer.

[@robertcarson2228]

You're still far left.

[@mylgphonenewphone3787]

He says it's simple to say "fish" doesn't mean "flower" but in 2022 a California court, using his method, ruled that bees are fish. Google it, I promise that's real.

[@guymontag1427]

The Judges do decide on politics. He’s lying.

[@euphegenia]

Prove it. How many full SCOTUS opinions have you read in your life? If you’ve read a single one, you’d know a significant amount of thought goes into every opinion. And you’d know that a significant majority of opinions are issued with at least 7 out of 9 Justices concurring. A very slim number are 5-4 opinions. But keep guzzling your leftist media.

[@donaldspaulding6973]

He may not be lying, but just too pompous and arrogant to believe it.

[@Neofilmcritic]

That’s not at all what he even said

[@pearlsaremybestfriend]

Sotomayor warned us . The people didnt understand how slanted any panel of human beings with great power can get.

[@kushclarkkent6669]

Enjoy retirement, sir!

[@GratefulAmerican]

what a biased interviewer.

[@geargeekpdx3566]

OK BOT

[@michelebartleson7971]

This dude seems a little bit arrogant and I'm a liberal. Especially while talking about removing the rights of half of the population

[@floodgatestudios1825]

Blah blah blah, ive seen him in 3 interviews this week and he has said NOTHING! EXCEPT buy my book

[@sarahpamula778]

I cancelled my Doctor's appointments because it hurts too much!

[@James-p6b4p]

What we should do is change. Where you swear to protect and defend the constitution of the Unitaed States. For all enemies, foreign and abroad. To idiots.

[@familygene9030]

The age of respecting judges with black robes has looooong passed.

[@Catwoman7_7]

Great interview. A lot of hidden criticism to the current SCOTUS. Brilliant mind

[@mcribenthusiast7010]

Roe and Casey were absolute gong shows of opinions.

[@kylelapish5037]

Reject the evidence of your eyes and ears is what this mfr saying

[@jessicawilkerson6294]

This man clearly doesn’t understand the current political situation we are currently in, not the way he talks about it! Pre Trump era 🤔 maybe, Post Trump…Absolutely NOt!! This man is delusional!

[@RestoreJustice675]

The future dont matter regarding the law, only THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS, Without twisting the Constitution into a pretzle.

[@mattnsac]

I guarantee he would fight tooth and nail over what a single word means if he was a defendant, glad he thinks its so fluid when it effects someone else. To think that hes actually moderate compared to his liberal successors and failed appointments are so much worse. Garland and KJB are an embarrassment to the court.

[@lisafreebairn7736]

Excuse me how is KJB the embarrassment????? Where is your data to support such a comment. Take a look at Thomas and Alito! Corrupt to their dirty little cores. They have accepted funds and elaborate bribes from their billionaire friends. Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett lied during the hearings.

[@berniezander]

This is the 2nd interview with him I have watched. Obviously as a condition to be interviewed he would not be asked about SCOTUS unethical acceptance of bribes, which are clearly influencing justices like insolent Clarence.

[@amjgbaobei]

At 0:54 when she asked him the question if he liked all the other justices…. You could tell the video had been edited…. Probably at his request.

[@imstevemcqueen]

Heavily edited

[@maxiprimo]

Its True People Value Life For Everybody.

[@torturedsoul8066]

I watched the Court rule and say that the person failed to raise an issue on appeal and therefore cannot obtain the outcome that they are seeking. Why does the Court blame the person for their attorney performing ineffectively? How does it further justice to deny based appeal based on an attorneys failure to perform? You are avoiding ruling on the merits of the case and what is just by doing that. In criminals proceedings the courts procedures do not override my right to be free. If a person is incarcerated is known to be innocent and exhausted all procedures then the procedures have bene proven to be unconstitutional. Court procedures do not override my right to liberty. How many ways could that be abused? Defense attorneys could be setting innocent people up simply because they omit some key evidence. All to get a job with the prosecutors office for instance. Right?

[@Goldilockszone123]

Sorry, really hate to disagree, and with respect, this Supreme Court is political in their decision making.

[@Chrisuperfly1]

and plenty of people disagree with you

[@Goldilockszone123]

@@Chrisuperfly1 I’m sure they do and honestly hope that I’m wrong

[@myleslong5584]

@@Goldilockszone123 But,PLENTY of people also AGREE with your initial disagreement. There is a portion of the Supreme Court that seems to be bought and paid for.

[@Royal-xh8db]

Well Goldilocks, if you believe in the constitution then it would be political. Democrats always say they believe in it, but then they're always threatening to change it or flat out ignoring it. 🤔

[@mishagofman1706]

​@@myleslong5584like ketanji? who doesn't like 1A

[@dennishickey7194]

Stopped watching as soon as he said "I don't think that's true." ( That the Supremes make their decisions based on politics)

[@danielerenae]

This is what pure evil looks like

[@larrymosher5045]

How does the retired Justice feel about Clarence Thomas and his gifts/trips.

[@govo5677]

Timing is the give/away

[@lindaknorr9643]

What is a woman?

[@rogerodle8750]

Stephen Breyer: "The Constitution is a living document." Nope. Good riddance.

[@Einstein9201]

Texts are alive. That is the way it works.

[@sweetesthawaiianprincess8086]

Interviewer biased and opinionated 😮

[@danielerenae]

This dude has something to hide. Sad few years for America

[@geargeekpdx3566]

Based on what? You feelings?

[@NikosZaidGomez]

What a likable guy. Unfortunately, he is too close to the painting to see the fundamental political calculus in the court. They certainly may, and overwhelmingly likely do, believe what he states, but as people without skin in the game, reputation-wise, we can analyze the court's behavior and see that politics is a mechanism that describes the actions the court takes, has been forever. It's also unfortunate that the interviewer feeds into this narrative, and promulgates it, and teases it out from him. A fact we all need to contend with is that the judicial branch is a political body (not specific to this court), and it would be good to hear the interviewer acknowledge that. Marbury v Madison was political. The four horsemen of the apocalypse stepping down was political. Breyer stepping down when he did was political. And dozens more cases. To be clear, if I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of cases before the supreme court are usually unanimous. And that is relevant, but we are talking about the political questions before the court, which is fundamentally a political body. Consider the fact that in the vast majority of cases in any political body, any congress, even America's, does a myriad of things that are widely supported and unanimous in the body. But it isn't what gets covered, and for good reason. So we can't lose sight of the fact that the court is fundamentally political, and that doesn't equate to being a bad thing. It is what it is.

[@seank4148]

Biased

[@1ROB82]

Everyone is a GD liar…

[@Wizardof]

Yeah now free to say a few things, whilst comfortably RETIRED.

[@WarPig1911]

Ayy algorithm...Never show me CBS and their garb. Thanks

[@luicilsp]

I am not sure he gives me hope! It’s contradicting and gives no hope at all in justice

[@ladygoldfinger]

Aged, self-assured, extremely political judges who take time away from their million dollar yachts so they can sit before a camera and listen to themselves talk about nothing, as interviewers’ questions go unanswered.

[@kerrfoy3653]

Breyer has the same world view as Garland, Mayorkas, Soro, Fink, Schwab, Schumer, Yellen and Blinken. Go figure 🤔

[@adityatyagi4009]

Roe should have never been overturned.

[@mishagofman1706]

it is not in the constitution - it was not legit - it went back to the states!!!

[@FrankieFrankerson-nq3xg]

Shouldn't have ever been allowed

[@mishagofman1706]

went back to states, not in the constitution - not a big deal

[@kittyrodgers8078]

The person Roe you refer to went to her grave with regret for her part in that law suit. You people speak about it as if you have any idea what it was actually about and the politics that played into. Just to let you know Democrats could have codified it at any time of their choosing. The Supreme Court didn't take away the right to abortions. They simply left it in the states hands as it should have been before Roe v Wade.

[@adityatyagi4009]

It's a very big deal for those who live in states where abortion has been outlawed.@@mishagofman1706

[@geargeekpdx3566]

Ask him what he thinks of Ginni Thomas

[@TheresaStiffler]

CBS👎👎👎👎👎👎

[@jimwaterhouse7747]

Propaganda riddled woman

[@papajigster]

Only the conscientious should make laws, and the most conscientious to interpret laws. Whereas everything matters, including public opinion, it is dangerous for judges to focus on public opinion... The so called public opinion by journalists, polls, or politicians can be based on lies, illusions, or sheer cruelty. Good folks use conscience to re-educate public opinion, then the mistaken will learn or learn the hard way. A righteous minority should live, even if it means Noah repeating, and billions or xyz suffer or die... Not one righteous person or Assange should suffer or die due to law or public opinion, if I was a Judge or God... kzbin.info/www/bejne/hnKVlqSHa8iVfc0si=iC3pClKNQWxRlMql

[@pamgreen7178]

Liberal biased

[@ctmehmel]

man sounds like he used to play football with out a helmet

[@irenesterling6898]

If Only we had judges like this nowadays 😢😢

[@lseh4720]

With all due respect, a scene or heard about the bribery of Justice Thomas? Have you seen any of the presentations by Senator Whitehouse? Have you heard the word court capture?

[@chrisn.6477]

Exactly zero respect is due. *If he ever* deserved respect in the past - he certainly doesn’t now… nor will he for the rest of his life. Shameful & disgusting.

[@ralphbernieri3362]

SO think we should have 15, 16, 18 judges like the Left want, and it's not political?

[@harveywilkinson2432]

No, we should have 15, 16, 18 judges because that would make more sense and serve the country better than what we have now.

[@Einstein9201]

Your ideas are deeply unpopular. We get it.

[@bekind9668]

Non political 👍

[@kellythompson3865]

The civil war!? Trump? Such abstractions! Ya talkin spirituality or cash!? Remember, calif. Senator Zenovich (Cal.) Never answered a quistion, from A ta B and back vaguely! Make ya feel afool and donalds dern confusin. Thank ya! Judge?

[@guythomas5920]

Out to lunch.

[@onemillionmiltonians]

Stephen Breyer may be an American hero--he's the only person who gave up his power by choice and turned to making a difference in the country.

[@mishagofman1706]

nope - he was forced into retirement

[@laurie113]

And now the Supreme Court Kurt is such a joke and nest of lying horrible people

[@ritapatricia7364]

GEE, I THOUGHT HE WAS DEAD. VOTE TRUMP, MAGA.

[@ac.7724]

you don't have to yell, lol.

[@truth1013]

Yes he should yell it we need people to scream it from the mountain tops Trump 2024 our democracy depends on it

[@lucyrodriguez3858]

The federal government of US is conformed by Executive branch, Judicial branch and Legislative branch; that’s why America is great because of separation of powers, no because of ONE person.

[@Einstein9201]

@@truth1013 democracy depends on the guy who tried to overturn an election by violent coup?