The Rule of Law: A Conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer

Watch live as Justice Stephen Breyer returns to the JFK Jr. Forum for a conversation moderated by Nancy Gibbs of the Shorenstein Center and Professor Daphna Renan of Harvard Law School. The conversation begins 6:00 PM ET.

[@2Truth4Liberty]

FYI - There are different two primary versions of originalism, original intent (what the writers of the constitituon intended) - and - original meaning (what the people understood the constitution to mean when it was ratified). Justice Scalia followed "original meaning" (which I believe is proper because the power delegated to the constitution came from those who ratified it). PS "original intent" can effectively get into purposivism, i.e., the purpose the writers had in mind In my opinion, when "original meaning" is no longer what We The People today want, it can and should be amended, not just have judges interpret it differently.

[@donakarunaratne6012]

AMAZING!! 😍😍😍😍

[@justinguillaume7986]

Calm down. It's not prn.

[@howardleekilby7390]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@rwnorris24]

@20:06 “Would you use ‘the’ in referring to God?” Thus, ‘the’ implies a subordinate right to that of existence. -R.W.N II

[@roses2155]

It's clear that Justice Breyer sees the role of SCOTUS as to be a superior legislative body. At 17:00 characterized a textualism as a path, "... that will get us nowhere." That very opinion tells us of his belief system which includes the notion that SCOTUS should be free to find Constitutional mandates and rights that "ought" to be included but are not written therein. That is the very definition of a legislative agenda. As for citing "purpose," it is disingenuous to characterize a textualist as someone that refuses to extrapolate purpose from the text, as with, for the example, the growth of technology and the First Amendment. The difference isn't that simplistic. It's when Justice Breyer et al manufacture "purpose" out of thin air when the text is clearly written but counter to their desires for the society. Again, a desire to change the law is found in the halls of a legislature, not SCOTUS.

[@justinguillaume7986]

This discussion is a perfect example of a bias party refusing to accept the others sides actual argument. They are arguing against a position conservatives don't have. That's when one knows they are wrong.

[@2Truth4Liberty]

Abortion is an issue the government should not be entangled with, period. There should be no legal "right" but there should also be no legal prohibition. ==== I disagreed with a number of positions of law taken by Justice Breyer but I have the utmost respect for him as a Justice and more importantly, as a person. Yes, person, not perdaughter, but we won't get into that LOL

[@dfbaerwald]

I know that psychological analyses are not done via video, but Mr. Breyer, regardless of his professionalism or lack thereof, is a textbook narcissist.

[@aleksandarjankovski6542]

Indeed. That’s just so apparent. How could I have missed it. You nailed it. Of course, speaking of psychological analyses, it may well be that you’re projecting your own narcissism on Justice Breyer.

[@jplb96]

You're a textbook Zounderkite.