Justice Breyer Reveals Why He Didn't "Respectfully" Dissent The SCOTUS Ruling On Texas
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 сен 2021
- Stephen welcomes Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to the show and gets right down to business, asking about the court's ruling on the Texas anti-abortion law. Justice Breyer's new book, "The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics," is available everywhere now. #Colbert #SupremeCourt #JusticeStephenBreyer
Subscribe To "The Late Show" Channel: bit.ly/ColbertRUclips
Watch full episodes of "The Late Show": bit.ly/1Puei40
Like "The Late Show" on Facebook: on. 1df139Y
Follow "The Late Show" on Twitter: 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.
---
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert is the premier late night talk show on CBS, airing at 11:35pm EST, streaming online via Paramount+, and delivered to the International Space Station on a USB drive taped to a weather balloon. Every night, viewers can expect: Comedy, humor, funny moments, witty interviews, celebrities, famous people, movie stars, bits, humorous celebrities doing bits, funny celebs, big group photos of every star from Hollywood, even the reclusive ones, plus also jokes. 
Развлечения
Any "law" that is worded in such a way to avoid judicial review should be regarded as what it is... Not a law. We have checks and balances and a hierarchy for a reason. No single part of government gets to have both the first _and_ last word on a topic. SCOTUS should have either reviewed it, or struck it down for being "un-reviewable". Abstaining is aiding and abetting Authoritarianism.
Exactly my friend.
As a famous Law Lord in the UK said, "If that is what the law says then the law is an ass".
This is how Zimbabwe became Mugabe country and America thought it could never get there. Well here we are.
@Serpentine Sword You need to pay closer attention to what "conservatism" is, as a political ideology... _All it is,_ is "we don't wanna!".
If none of you have heard of the 1942 USDA film *HEMP FOR VICTORY* then you have no idea how fucked up this country really is.
America outlawed "Marihuana" in 1937 and then legalized "Marihuana" in 1942 to defend our country against the Axis of Evil.
*Hemp For Victory* was buried under decades of drug war lies and the film's official re-release in 1990 made no difference.
Our government has been harassing, arresting, beating and even killing Americans since World War II over the same Cannabis Sativa plant that saved America during World War II. This doesn't register with anyone, this doesn't matter to anyone, and everyone just keeps paying billions in taxes each year to keep our war against ourselves going.
Do NOT televise SCOTUS hearings. We have enough reality shows. Can we keep something serious?
You don't think courts should be transparent?
@@charlesthomas135 Transparent, yes. We should be able to get transcripts of the hearings and perhaps an audio, but maybe even audio is a bad idea. I don’t want it to become like a circus where we have morons like Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz just show up to grandstand and just say whatever that will get them to go viral. We already have a maniac In Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, you don’t think he’ll turn it into a 💩 show if given the chance?
What makes you think revelation of the now sht show makes it any more a circus than it already is?
@@avamasquerade yeah people really don't understand how crazy politics has always been
@@avamasquerade at this time I don’t see the SCOTUS as a shit show.
The thing I don't understand about the new law is how they can arbitrarily assign 'legal standing' to everyone - or how they can award $10,000 if someone can't demonstrate actual 'damages'. I understand there can also be punitive damages in courts - but punitive for what? - if the person suing can't demonstrate personal harm? And without harm, where's the 'standing'?
Most lawyers feel the law is wildly unconstitutional and IANAL but the reason they didn't stay the new law was due to the enforcement not involving the states. Most comments I've read basically reduced the decision to lazy partisanship. Hopefully it will get struck down. If it doesn't, I hope blue states finally pass gun laws that deputize citizens in an equally absurd way.
This is the most unusual element of the law. But legal analysis of it by a court mightn’t produce the expected outcome. The foetus at issue can’t sue. The issue then becomes who does have locus standi to take up and litigate the rights afforded by this statute to an unborn child. Usually, it is the Attorney General. But locus standi must migrate somewhere to a third-party or no-one will have locus standi (the mother of the unborn child seeking this procedure presumably can be expected not to litigate against their own actions and the rights created by statute for the unborn child would
then become a nullity).
Environmental lobby groups or human rights groups (the ACLU, the NAACP, etc) are all allowed locus standi to litigate various public rights issues.
It certainly has the character of a bounty payment. But essentially it is a private civil prosecution for breach of a third-party right.
Roman law rewarded private prosecutors of political corruption with the seat held by the successfully prosecuted politician. That is how Cicero became a Senator. Senatorial office was the prize awarded by law to the person who successfully obtained a conviction of a serving Senator for a crime of political corruption.
This law must still be tested. Unconstitutional elements can be severed from the law in question or it might be wholly struck down.
To say that damages were incurred by the prosecutor would certainly appear to be a legal fiction. But it might still be rational to prescribe damages in the matter. Essentially, the law is setting out a prescribed financial penalty for the breach of rights and to that extent there are damages conceivably to be awarded in the matter (how those damages are then assigned is a matter of public policy: to a trust fund for the child, to cover the costs of the private prosecutor as apart from the legal costs of the attorney appointed by the private prosecutor, etc.).
Whether the element of the payment which is a “reward” (as apart from compensation for the losses incurred upon a prosecutor choosing to take up this matter) can be formally mixed with “damages” is something that will have to be assessed in substantive challenges to the law.
But some of that is only a facial concern. The result of Obamacare challenges (on whether something is a tax or a penalty) have shown that whether something is a tax or a penalty is something which can be objectively decided and isn’t something which is decided purely on the language employed to decide the measure.
Statute is afforded a measure of scope for pursuing objectively justifiable public policy goals.
All of this will have to be decided in any challenges made to the law.
But the precedent isn’t as radical as it appears facially.
If a person can be fined (“taxed”) for not having private healthcare (and a monopoly private provider funnelled the money arising), why can’t they be fined (and a private prosecutor receive the cash diversion)?
Asset forfeiture laws can seize homes and assets and a party nominated by statute (the sheriff’s department bringing the asset forfeiture application) - and conceivably not damaged by the crime concerned at all - can receive the monies levied under the confiscation order applied for by the Sheriff.
What’s the difference in principle? A court will have to decide that.
@@jshannon9362 That's all well and good. Enjoy paying $10,000 for registering republican.
And the actual answer is that the state is involved in a violation of a constitutionally guaranteed right when _the court_ grants the $10,000 judgment. Polluting and not buying healthcare are not constitutionally guaranteed rights--unlike the right to an abortion, which was held to be implicit to the constitutionally recognized right to privacy. Any intellectually honest court that abides by stare decisis would recognize this.
@@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos Precisely, Alexander. The core of the statute may be wholly unconstitutional. That would render the ancillary issues moot. The precedent is the issue. Roe v Wade was decided on privacy grounds. Privacy in the Instagram age is a vexed issue.
There is a right to privacy and a right to intrude upon it in given circumstances. That is as true of crime or national security as pregnancy.
Justice Ginsburg was right to consider that Roe v Wade was decided prematurely. If time had been allowed, a less charged situation might have evolved. Certainly a better perspective could have been allowed.
The United States is currently contending with a declining population in its most populous states (California, New York), 20% of all pregnancies in the US are being aborted (a peak of over 30% was reached in the 1980s), bankruptcy of the Social Security Fund is projected to occur by 2034 or earlier, and over 1 million abortions means a demographic trend is now in force which has the dependency ratio moving from each worker supporting 13 retired people in 1950 to supporting 36 retired people by 2050.
The US Census is showing actual numerical decline in the largest American States while facing rising Asian superpowers with 1 billion citizens each.
It may be that Roe v Wade was the most consequential decision in the history of the Republic. Up to a third of the population of any given generation has disappeared as a result of it, beyond hope of statutory restraint.
Abraham Lincoln may have had Marfan Syndrome, a genetic disorder. Beethoven was deaf. Stephen Hawking suffered a degenerative disorder.
We just can’t predict the results of abortion.
The economic and national economic security consequences of it went wholly unconsidered and a Brandeis brief on the subject might have produced very different results today. But precedent (and the rights protected under rule of precedent) are more valuable than re-runs of a decided issue. Unless Roe v Wade can be plausibly distinguished or a manifest error condition established, the law will stand.
The whole point was intimidation. Someone will eventually have to bring a case to court where it will be found unconstitutional. Nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb and I doubt the people who cooked up this flawed idea even want to see it go to court to be tested.
Justice Breyers frequents my cafe when he’s in Boston visiting his alma matter… he’s a nice, quite, reserved guy; gets either a small coffee or a cappuccino: no nonsense. I would have never known who he was, if it had not been for a breathlessly-excited, Harvard law school student, ran up to us and was like “Do you know who that was?!” After seeing a few times, while plenty of controversial cases were being handled, and I was like, “Wait, why doesn’t he have secret service or something? This guy is just wandering around alone and vulnerable, with great power, in politically tumultuous times…?” I got worried. Especially was a liberal judge, I started thinking “What the hell are you doing out in public? Risking all this shit!? Get back in your safe!”
the dude needs to retire old age will get him before a trumper
S_A Yes. I just gotta add that he's a handsome bugger too.
He seems like a total douche
Like I didn't already have enough concerns!
Fear is the mind killer, right? Dem leaders need to find the courage to take available actions necessary for pulling democracy back from the precipice. Doesn't matter if those actions are unpopular with some!
Until then, I volunteer to be his shield, coffee carrier, etc. 😉
@@jeremysmith9694 Only to one with a shortage of imagination or an inferiority complex.
Whenever you can have such a brilliant guest on the show, it's such a pleasure to witness the humility and self irony that the guest exudes. Such a joy to listen to the Justice having as much fun in the most sharp witted manner as the host. We are truly fortunate to have minds like his on the Supreme Bench.
The one star on the Texas flag is its Yelp review.
Brilliant!
first time I see this joke. love it. I wonder if it will catch on.
I’m Texan and I agree. One of the largest states in the nation is so gentrified.
Seems a lot of Californians are being enticed to the Lone Star State
In 1770, the average life expectancy was 39 years old. Based on this, they made the supreme court a lifetime appointment, not knowing that 200 years later, we'd have the science to extend life into the 70s and 80s.
Yooo, we need to put term limits on the court, for real.
That's not really true though. The life expectancy in those times is skewed by child mortality rates. Once a person reached adulthood, they more often than not had a long life.
@@WSUFan2017 Back on topic. Term Limits need to happen
@@NathanCroucher Totally.
@@WSUFan2017 child mortality and cannon-fodder and plague and pestilence and ... if they got lucky they lived into their 50s. Washington, who presumably had the best doctors of the time, made it to 67. retirement + 2. Not 87.
@@WSUFan2017 absolutely correct. Most of my ancestors have lived into their 70s 80s and 90s for centuries. TB for many, and women dying of childbirth in their late 30s and early 40s.
Brilliant statement that rulings are also for the entire USA and not just the parties of the case.
Posses? Anyone remember McCarthyism? Too utterly scary for words.
There's an old movie called "The Ox-Bow Incident" about what happens when posses decide that they are the law. Three innocent men get hanged for a crime that never happened.
It does explain the “culture” of Texas.
This is one of the best interviews I have ever seen. Wonderful to get another look at one of the justices that preside over the country, thank you stephen and his team!
Justice Breyer exudes a refreshing sense of humor! Plus, reassuring self-confidence mixed with humility and patient wisdom.🦋
if he had any humility he would retire instead of acting like he's going to live forever as a supreme court justice at the expense of us all.
Something that you cannot find in a conservative.
Self confidence, perhaps. Wisdom and humility? We'll see.
@@gudldj This!
Let's see some wisdom from anyone.
The US outlawed Cannabis Sativa as a dangerous narcotic in 1937 to "save America," and then the US legalized Cannabis Sativa in 1942 to make equipment for the military that was fighting to actually save America.
Is there any person in the United States today who can watch the 14-minute 1942 USDA film *Hemp For Victory* and come to the logical conclusion that the war on drugs is a betrayal of our freedom and democracy? Apparently there isn't, especially not any Supreme Court justices.
Seems like a great man, but please retire as long as Biden can still replace him 🤷♀️
I doubt Mitch McConnell will let him.
@@mindlessgonzo Mitch doesnt have a choice anymore he is minority leader lol
@@gozzilla177 by the time he retires Mitch might be back as majority leader. RBG refused to step down during obama's time and look what happened.
Supreme court justices don't retire. They're in the job for life.
These curmudgeons live in their own cocoon bubbles. It was same with RBG during last Obama term when she was asked repeatedly about retirement; she declined to retire. Now we know the consequences to that.
He's right on the Texas issue. The majority was playing it too cute in order to please a political faction, a serious dereliction of due diligence. I'm of two minds on the cameras in court issue but it really should be about the law and not personalities and politics.
Lunhil, look at what happened in the oj Simpson trial. That should convince you about cameras in the courtroom.
@@sheilalopez3983 I always go back and forth on this myself but I ultimately think this is best. The media, and the nation, will eat it up and it will no longer be what it needs to be to help our country
And herein lies the bold example of partisanship in the supreme court
Politics is 100% in everything. A statement of disarmament like yours seems like the first symptom of either cowardness or controlled opposition, either of which produces the same amount of health for individuals and societies in my opinion. Like the way Ocasio-Cortez voted "present" for example.
@@laurie6123 well get it fixed, stay smart, stay, strong, stay cool 😎😁.
If RBG retired as she was asked during Obama's years, Amy Coney Barrett wouldn't be in office. This old dude needs to retire.
if Ginsberg had retired, McConnell would have held the seat open for years.
Who was the Senate leader?
RBG would've had to have retired back in 2009 to get another left-leaning judge on the bench. Any later and either Obama would've had to nominate a middle-of-the-road judge who'd side with the right as often as the left, or the GQP would've just held the seat for Trump.
Please do not forget, as the previous president did, that Presidents are not Kings and our system obviously does not guarantee appointments. RBG was correct. Amy would likely be where she is now. We voted enough for the authoritarians that they won the Electoral College. Now if there were no Electoral College, or no Dominionists, no Nationalists ..... but there are. RBG did the best she could in the world we have.
@@BlaineTog uh Obama didn't nominate any really "left leaning" justices Sotomayor is a centrist.
"The Jack Parr Show" is definitely not a reference for the younglings under 50, lol
What if I’m 50 right now? (Yeah, I got the ref.)
Make that under 70.
I'm 56 and I heard of Jack Paar, but if the show was on when I was a kid, I was much too young to understand. I dont clearly remember too much from early childhood. For a long time, I thought everything on t.v. was entertainment, and I didnt grasp that the news was talking about the real world. Then one day, the announcer reporting on Vietnam said something that made me ask my parents:"are we at war right now? I thought WWII was the last war ever, and the world was at peace. And when I asked, my dad kind of laughed and said:"this is the SECOND war we've had since then." And that is officially when my childhood innocence shattered. I think it's the first time I really felt terrified by something that wasn't imaginary.
That was an excellent interview of what I perceive to be an honest forthright person. His demeanor gives faith in the judicial process.
Now bring on the others and see if they deserve the same credibility.
For what it is worth and in my opinion, Stephen Colbert is hands down the BEST, out of all the night show host, when it comes to interviewing his guest and often times Colbert will ask those difficult questions without causing the guests to secluded themselves or even flat out end the interview because they didn't want to answer the question.
He may be the best now because Conan is gone.
@@MichaelAres I agree but I didn't really like this interview. He was overtalking and not allowing the conversation to go to the real issues. A little too goofy for such a serious guest
Men should not decide on how women decide what to do with their bodies
Nor women who don't have that other woman's particular body. Pregnancy may be natural but it is not always easy nor safe.
People who are not doctors should not decide on what women do with their bodies
You could really disappear down the rabbit hole on that one. Be realistic otherwise we end up with yet another disunity in the constitution, because you know that the next GOP point will be that only men can judge men. People are people at the end of the day and we have to pull back from gender centricity otherwise where does it end.
Engel, I think women should pass a Texas law where men have to get a vasectomy.
@@gunner678 Who decides if a man should or can have a vasectomy or prostatectomy, the lady down the street?
It feels a bit uncomfortable that justices are appearing on late night TV.
It’s amazing how sharp this guy is at the age of 83!
Unlike Brandon.
get rid of these non-sense lifetime appointments
They aren’t nonsense. It was one of the ways to guarantee the independence of that branch of government. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue, but to call the lifetime appointments simply “nonsense” ignores a huge part of the problem.
27 years!!?? Someone please explain to me why there is not a term limit to serve at these high level positions like there is for the presidency? Power corrupts. It feels wrong that one person is allowed to hold such an important position for decades.
Australia put a cap on the age of High Court judges (the equivalent of the US Supreme Court) at 70 because there was that one guy that just would leave and he was in office until he was 83, and was on the bench of the High Court for 46 years.
It’s actually the opposite of corruption, the reason they stay in so long is so they don’t have to worry about campaigning and swaying voters with false information
Sweet Jesus, Justice Breyer, RESIGN while we can get a lib replacement.
YES
I forget. Given all the shenanigans, is it strictly simply majority for advice and consent?
@@christopheroliver148 Yes, and Manchin/Sinema have confirmed all of Biden's nominees without question
I'm the first to leave a comment 😊👍
Luv & Light to ALL who come here. 💖
U hardly ever see a Judge with a sense of humour like this guy👍
All these older liberal judges need to think about retiring before the end of Biden's term. I always think RGB should had retired before the end of Obama's term.
Before 2022 when the Democrats lose the H.ouse and Senate
RBG would've had to retire before republicans took the senate in 2014, two years into his second term, or McConnell would've withheld two seats instead of just one.
It's just breyers and he needs to go ASAP. He's a fool if he thinks politics is like the 1980s 90s. He needs to be replaced by a 50 yr old like Barrett.
👋🤣💨
Republicans were not suppose to win in 2014 according to polling, that was a big surprise they kept the House & claimed the Senate. RBG was likely caught off guard. The Senate is also now 50/50, it would be hard to get a progressive judge through, it would be a moderate.
His refusal to retire right now is an example of why we need term limits for SCOTUS. I'm glad he agrees the Tx abortion case should not have been on the shadow (emergency) docket.
Judges become too self centered? Sir... That already happened. The moment you allow someone to remain in their position for life. They don't care about the impact because there is no way to hold you accountable.
The nonchalant attitudes toward taking away constitutional rights is beyond scary... Just write some paperwork and onto the next case. It's time to retire. I'm intentionally not putting in respectfully.
Someone hasn’t read up on the history of why there are lifetime appointments on high courts and the meaning of the word ‘independence’. You are also ignoring the inherent problems with a term limited Court (*constantly* reversing the interpretation of the Constitution is just one). There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. It’s complicated, as most things are.
lifetime appointments were made when our life expectancy was barely 50 years old. Now people who are pampered live way past 80. I think they wouldn't write laws of Lifetime appointment back then if they knew you were around for Generations. The older person gets the more conservative and stubborn their ideas become.
Ok I officially love justice Breyer.
If he cared he would resign. Simple.
@@misssummersalt You think the way to change things is to not be in a position to change things?
@@johnharding4444 he’s not the only person that can change things. Him stepping down for someone that is younger is an objective better move.
@@benmartin3154 You think replacing an experienced person, with a less experienced person is "objectively" better?
Strange logic and use of the word objectively there.
@@johnharding4444 So what if he has a little more experience the dude is going to expire on the court and be replaced with someone less experience who doesn’t give a shit about the rule of law unless he is replaced. That is objectively the truth
Please retire Sir. We have no chance for a future if you wait till we lose our majority
You think he’s going to die during a Republican administration?
@@ascent8487 I guess you forgot when Obama was denied appointing Merrick Garland. McConnell is a snake disguised as a human.
@@ascent8487 I would hope not but he is old and RBG didnt think she would either
"It could be that I just forgot to put in the ['respectfully']."
Translation: I didn't forget, and I fucking hated that decision.
Twinkle in his eye on that one. And Repubs think they're the only one w a sense of humor.
You have to think about it.. you're in Colbert's Court now, Mister!
I don't know what the fuck this comment means. Colbert is a lateshow host......there is no oversite for SCOTUS Certainly not the Late Show
I vote NO on cameras in the courtroom. It would quickly degenerate into a circus of grandstanding for GoFundMe defense funds and the like. No thanks. Keep it solemn and serious. Court reporters are always there to record everything that happens. That is more than enough.
We should allow still cameras with no flash though. Keeping court artists in business is just plain arcane. The modern cameras are so sensitive they can handle the low light and shutter sounds are artificial mostly now.
There are usually not court reporters. There is always an official recording that you can pay to get transcribed.
They have cameras in the Supreme Court of Canada. You can see the back of the lawyers' heads. They put the hearings on Saturday nights. If I find myself watching, I realize how crap my life is. 😉
What does he feel about GINNY THOMAS, CLARENCE THOMASES WIFE, HELPING PLAN AND PAY FOR THE 1/6/21 COUP???
What what WHAAAAT?!?
He has too much class to even comment, not what Judges do...he gets to deal with them on the final appeal...
LOL you want some ice with that Kool-Aid?
Yeah. They are both a problem. If only we had listened to his accuser when she testified.
@@misssummersalt ditto!!
He should retire
This is why I love Stephen, he isnt afraid of being intelligent. Can you imagine this man being interviewed by Fallon?? Hearing that fake laugh and hitting the desk every 10 seconds? 😆
Omfg no 🤣🤦♀️🤦♀️
I canNOT watch Fallon! So full of himself!
Nice, Honorable Colbert! You earned that pencil-mike drop!
He seems more thoughtful and forward thinking than the justice. Stephen for Scotus!
I can see the argument not to place cameras within the supreme court. I do love seeing Justice Breyer here, a man of humor and good sense. I can only imagine the arguments in support TX assault on women's rights from the "I love beer" clown. Talk about juxtaposition.
Justice Breyer…… PLEASE RETIRE!!!!!
This judge has a real sense of humor. The evidence is that he can laugh about himself.
Scallia was the same way
Breyer & Scalia are compared to Abbott and Costello with their hypotheticals
Wow, I didn’t realize how good Justice ‘voice of reason’ looks! Hot damn! You sir are aging gracefully. 🙌🏼🤘🏼
Thoroughly enjoyed meeting. Interesting to see how Justice Breyer's mind works to locate the truth, even when chatting w Stephen. Elegance of cognition and communication. Add more such justices.!
It doesn't matter if Stephen Breyer is right. If he doesn't step down, he's going to hand yet another seat over to another Republican. And then what he thinks won't mean a thing.
You might not know but this judge is more coherent then joe Biden and no one is demanding Biden steps down!
That would be a good thing
I love you, Justice Breyer!
So glad Colbert introduced this justice to all of us. Important perspective on the gravity of what our country means, although sad we have to be reminded because of callous ignorance and greed.
As if the majority of the late night audience remembers Johnny Carson, Stephen ain’t afraid to drop a Jack Paar reference. I’m hoping for a solid Steve Allen name drop tonight - it will indeed bring optimism to those disenfranchised with our nation’s institutions…
The idea that one of the Justices would act differently on campus, as a major reason to not have the Supreme Court on TV, is ridiculous. Aren't they suppose to be THE body of our government who are suppose to be the LEAST partial/bias/political?
The only thing I want to hear from Justice Breyer is "I Am Retiring TODAY."
I am sorry but wtf? A supreme court justice promoting his book on a late night show? Everything in that sentence is problematic.
He's been making his rounds to sell his book... 🤢
Problematic in what way? Is he prohibited from promoting his book? What a ridiculous comment.
Just Breyer: please please RETIRE!!
When was the last time a Supreme Court Justice was on a late night talker? It's not every day. Colbert comes from a family of lawyers and is smart enough to ask the right questions. Would love to see him do a half hour interview show with just one ir two guests.
Congratulations to Gavin Newcomb for winning twice. Thank you California for upholding the scales of justice.
Respectfully, he needs to retire I’ll personally throw the retirement party if they need me to
My previous post apparently didn’t meet the community guidelines. I was only describing my cafe, Justice Breyer’s order at my cafe, my concerns for the justice’s safety in public, and one humorous anecdote… what was wrong with that?
Wonderful, thank you
Stephen Colbert, you nailed it!
Cameras in every court room. Shine a light on every detail that hides under every rock. The only transparent way to have any hope of faith in our judicial / law enforcement system.
Elect the supreme court justices
This is lovely. Justice Breyer is a kind and wise man...Stephen is as well...and a brilliant host! Both are national treasures.
And they need to have term limits!
The interns fooled me! These segments are uploaded in the order they should be and I couldn't find the first one be cause *_IT WAS POSTED FIRST!!!_* Took me a half hour to find it. :(
All supreme court justices should be elected by the people and not by partisan party's. Sorry if that sounds to much like Democracy.
Who would have thought that the country with more lawyers than the rest of the world put together has a clunky judicial process?
SCOTUS needs term limits, he needs to retire.
SCOTUS needs to be expanded and made 50/50 male/female. Equal representation- which probably means more like 49% male/50%female
Retire Breyer!
I don’t about you but to watch this judge chuckle at the major decisions that are being made while offering up folksy antidotes is terrifying.
This is problematic. And his willingness to have cameras while they debate serious issues so media outlets can edit things in a disingenuous way at a time when we’re all so divided is terrifying as well.
@@timnelson3431 you do know they already record them, right? 🤦🏽♂️
You don't have to think about the theory of televising the Court - other countries already do it and it's completely fine. The UK Supreme Court broadcasts all of its sessions, and most of the time it's just ignored, but on the rare situations where people do decide to tune in (the Brexit and Prorogation cases spring to mind) it actually just serves as a way to learn more about how the system works.
As a non-American, my almost always first impression of him during interviews is that he has such a distinct beautiful voice. What regional accent does he have?
He actually grew up in San Francisco in California.
Come on, Justice- you need to be NON-POLITICAL in determining TRUE JUSTICE. Let’s ALL vote for a reasonable term of service by a Supreme Court Judge- this should NOT be a lifetime appointment😱😱😱
I like Justice Breyer. Wit and wisdom.
Why is Stephen Breyer on a media tour?
Wonderful ! Colbert and Breyer gave us a wonderful view of two intelligent and educated men civilly discussing serious issues. Too bad that T**** was and is not in their league, is poorly educated, not intelligent, and resorts to expletives because he has such an appallingly poor grasp of language. I hope Colbert invites Justice Breyer to return often. It is a joy to laugh at intelligent jokes!
I love you Steven Colbert my guy forever 🥳💪🏿👑
Retire. The ego on these guys... just like RBG was too arrogant to retire.
Pack the court!
Stephen for SCOTUS!
Too much power to too few people. Insane. Something needs to change.
Justice Breuer is the kind of person you'd expect to find on the Supreme Court, not Iluvbeer Kavamaugh or Shamy Fony Barrett
Grandpa is the time to retire
Everything in the Supreme Court should be televised in fact all court trials should always be televised.
L plays vrooom
Justice Breyer has a very pleasant demeanor .
“It could be that I just forget to put in the…” I do that too sometimes - good thing I catch myself when I leave the “F” out of the word “shift” in work emails…
Tell us about the Federalist Society, Mr Justice.
The Supreme Court should have term limits.
It seems this Justice doesn't remember that TX LT Gov. Dan Patrick (3/2020) feels people 70yrsplus should be willing to give their own lives to save the TX economy. The elderly can "take care of themselves", referring to the pandemic. So when people died this year during a freezing weather disaster with power outages and no water for days (weeks in some areas) it isn't apparent that this TX repub led govt. isn't pro-life Women's rights should be sacrificed first, last and always.
I hope Breuer doesn't ginsberg the democrats.
He will.
That is my fear as well
He looks and sounds amazingly healthy and mentally with-it for his age. I'm somewhat relieved 'cuz, yeah, Ginsberg.
Then he should retire when he gets sick.
*Breyer*
Clearly, he still has his wits about him. My Dad just died of a pulmonary embolism on September 5th at age 77. He was the type of person that went to the gym almost every day. His death was completely unexpected.
I respect justice Breyer. I hope he lives a long, happy life.
Evidently your Dad didn’t have a large supply of staff members who do the brain work like this Old Worthless One.
Judge Breyer obviously extremely intelligent and well-versed in the Law and the Constitution AND Very Clever and DELIGHTFUL! Have HIM on again...
So he came to plug his book...
They always do, or a movie, or an album, or a tv show, or a streaming show.......😉😕
Texasistan is so backwards, and has a crappy power grid too.
Let's hope the suction part is well hooked to it when the abortion starts...
Both Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas need to retired to somewhat balanced the SCOTUS to 5 - 4 with Chief Justice Roberts as the swing voter.
I don’t agree with Breyers big rulings but he seems like a gentleman and a nice person
Justice Stephen Breyer is real
Why ask a dude who is a part of the system and cares about preserving his position? He won't say anything controversial, he's careful not to offend anybody in the judicial system, especially on the SC.
I don't know. Leaving out the "respectfully" was pretty daring for any member of the court. That was pretty much the same as discharging a firearm inside city limits from a historical and tradition viewpoint. That was why he was coy in his answer to Stephan.
The question is whether or not private citizens can themselves be part of the executive branch (without being deputized). If they are not part of that branch and yet they themselves enforce the law, then we might wonder the extent to which the "law" is ruling and not persons. However, to answer Stephen's question, prosecutions in the Ancient world (including Socrates') were done by private citizens, not the state. So, that gives him a non-modern example of private citizens upholding the law.
The public always claps the same, does not matter who is the guest. Very scary!!!!
Thank gawd Stephen went into comedy even though he'd have made a great lawyer.
Very astute man.
LET THE MAN SPEAK
I've read below that most people enjoyed this interview. I thought it was too dry, too forced, but what do you expect from a Supreme Court justice, who is trained to think methodically, not comically? I applaud Breyer for coming on the show
In Brazil the Supreme Court has its own "TV channel"