Extended interview: Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 май 2024
- Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke to CBS Mornings about his new book, the Supreme Court's upcoming cases and more. Here's an extended version of our interview with Breyer, who stepped down from the Supreme Court two years ago.
#news #interview #supremecourt
Each weekday morning, "CBS Mornings" co-hosts Gayle King, Tony Dokoupil and Nate Burleson bring you the latest breaking news, smart conversation and in-depth feature reporting. "CBS Mornings" airs weekdays at 7 a.m. on CBS and stream it at 8 a.m. ET on the CBS News app.
Subscribe to “CBS Mornings” on RUclips: / cbsmornings
Watch CBS News: cbsnews.com/live/
Download the CBS News app: cbsnews.com/mobile/
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Instagram: / cbsmornings
Like "CBS Mornings" on Facebook: / cbsmornings
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Twitter: / cbsmornings
Subscribe to our newsletter: cbsnews.com/newsletters/
Try Paramount+ free: paramountplus.com/?ftag=PPM-0...
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
He is deluded about judges being appointed with no regards to political Partys.
looks to have some juice in his background
agreed... you could see him dripping with arrogance. one hell of creepy vibes from this guy.
+1
Hack is selling a book on his delusion 💸
@@stormtrooper88 Breyer's literally the most relatable, down to earth of the lot.
Really? It's quite apparent that they have played politics in our court systems. They need to keep it separate
@[LIVE] FOX NEWS | The Five 3/26/2024 PLEASE DO NOT LET JAUN WILLIAMS BACK ON YOUR SHOW. He is NO chief political analyst.
It's Juan.
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?
I think he’s explaining it right here as he discusses Dobbs
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.
Ya!! What you said!
because you do not like their rulings...???
9-0 on trumps disqualification case.
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.
"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.
"its your world now" at the end there.. who's he kidding?
STATUTES HAVE BEEN BREACKED DENYING THE RULE OF LAW AS IT APPLIES TO CONSTITUTION.
man sounds like he used to play football with out a helmet
Biased
1:00 would love to see what they cut out of his response here.
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
She's so wants him to say that conservatives are bad and Liberals are good. Her bias is atrocious
The constitution isn't open to interpretation. It says what it says period.
It wouldn't survive without interpretation.
You’re obviously not a scholar of law
@@Beitownit Don’t confuse him with anything requiring an intellect
@@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.
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.
So we're not a republic.
We need no more legislative judges!
what a biased interviewer.
OK BOT
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
Timing is the give/away
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.
What country are you from?
Sotomayor warned us . The people didnt understand how slanted any panel of human beings with great power can get.
What Democrats did to him is disgusting.
Do you still earn rubles or do they pay you in livestock when you're an intern?
What did Democrats do to him exactly?
Your freedoms are much more secure in a conservative Court that's a fact
Justice Breyer, can you give us your definition of a woman?
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.
He should not have to that is for a biologist
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.
@@williamz8330 Defining a woman as an "adult female" is a classic tautology. Useless as a definition.
@@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
Enjoy retirement, sir!
He had a really good discussion with Antonin Scalia about the interpretation of the constitution. Two very different ways to interpret the verbage.
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.
This isn't the same court as in his day. He's delusional.
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!!
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!!
@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
God bless Justice Breyer.
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.
Not impressed..
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!
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.
Its True People Value Life For Everybody.
You're still far left.
Blah blah blah, ive seen him in 3 interviews this week and he has said NOTHING! EXCEPT buy my book
What the f is this man talking about?
Roe and Casey were absolute gong shows of opinions.
The age of respecting judges with black robes has looooong passed.
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.
1 minute in, BS.
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?
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.
Stopped watching as soon as he said "I don't think that's true." ( That the Supremes make their decisions based on politics)
The future dont matter regarding the law, only THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS, Without twisting the Constitution into a pretzle.
The Judges do decide on politics. He’s lying.
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.
He may not be lying, but just too pompous and arrogant to believe it.
That’s not at all what he even said
Heavily edited
Interviewer biased and opinionated 😮
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.
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.
Great interview. A lot of hidden criticism to the current SCOTUS. Brilliant mind
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.
Ask him what he thinks of Ginni Thomas
You say you want/like democracy? When are you going to do that? We like democracy, we like to vote on things. We elect our President, Vice President, Senators, Congress, Governor, State Senators, State Legislature, Mayors, etc. but not a single person on our Supreme Court has EVER been elected. Our entire history of our Country and not a single one on our Supreme Court has EVER been elected. You say we have a Constitutional Republic? Yes, stupid that's Democracy.
How does the retired Justice feel about Clarence Thomas and his gifts/trips.
I am not sure he gives me hope! It’s contradicting and gives no hope at all in justice
Typical Liberl.
Yeah now free to say a few things, whilst comfortably RETIRED.
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.
Leftists are leftists!
This dude seems a little bit arrogant and I'm a liberal. Especially while talking about removing the rights of half of the population
Roe should have never been overturned.
it is not in the constitution - it was not legit - it went back to the states!!!
Shouldn't have ever been allowed
went back to states, not in the constitution - not a big deal
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.
It's a very big deal for those who live in states where abortion has been outlawed.@@mishagofman1706
This is what pure evil looks like
Non political 👍
What is a woman?
Out to lunch.
Sorry, really hate to disagree, and with respect, this Supreme Court is political in their decision making.
and plenty of people disagree with you
@@Chrisuperfly1 I’m sure they do and honestly hope that I’m wrong
@@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.
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. 🤔
@@myleslong5584like ketanji?
who doesn't like 1A
Reject the evidence of your eyes and ears is what this mfr saying
Breyer has the same world view as Garland, Mayorkas, Soro, Fink, Schwab, Schumer, Yellen and Blinken. Go figure 🤔
Everyone is a GD liar…
If Only we had judges like this nowadays 😢😢
This dude has something to hide. Sad few years for America
Based on what? You feelings?
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!
Stephen Breyer: "The Constitution is a living document." Nope.
Good riddance.
Texts are alive. That is the way it works.
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?
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.
I read in Politico the approval rating of our Supreme Court was 27%. My understanding it's gone down since. No Supreme Court in the history of our Country has ever been so low. I swear, we could take the cases to 3rd graders across the country and they'd do a better job than our current Supreme Court.
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...
ruclips.net/video/PA2eqQ6cbGk/видео.htmlsi=iC3pClKNQWxRlMql
Liberal biased
Ayy algorithm...Never show me CBS and their garb. Thanks
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?
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.
nope - he was forced into retirement
Propaganda riddled woman
"Intenté hacer una donación a Trump... ¡la letra pequeña decía que los dólares se enviarían directamente a E Jean Carroll y al estado de Nueva York!" 😮🥵
You gonna buy some Surrender Sneakers?
CBS👎👎👎👎👎👎
SO think we should have 15, 16, 18 judges like the Left want, and it's not political?
No, we should have 15, 16, 18 judges because that would make more sense and serve the country better than what we have now.
Your ideas are deeply unpopular. We get it.
And now the Supreme Court Kurt is such a joke and nest of lying horrible people
GEE, I THOUGHT HE WAS DEAD. VOTE TRUMP, MAGA.
you don't have to yell, lol.
Yes he should yell it we need people to scream it from the mountain tops Trump 2024 our democracy depends on it
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.
@@truth1013 democracy depends on the guy who tried to overturn an election by violent coup?