Former Justice Stephen Breyer weighs in on SCOTUS term limits
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 май 2024
- Former Justice Stephen Breyer joins Morning Joe to discuss his new book 'Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism'.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc...
Find MSNBC on Facebook: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: / msnbc
Former Justice Stephen Breyer weighs in on SCOTUS term limits
#StephenBreyer #SupremeCourt #SCOTUS
Don't explain it to us, Justice Breyer. Explain to the Conservative Judges currently ruining us.
How are they ruining us? They haven't done anything unconstitutional.
Lll
Amen. Demand SCOTUS do their job ethically.
Yes we need term limits the minute the supreme Court has a majority conservative all the decades we had a majority leftist nobody on the left wanted term limits 😂😂😂😂.
The Democrats don't follow the Constitution they've already taken away the constitutional right to life.
They've already created laws infringing on our right to bear arms. They've already created laws taken away our constitutional right to free speech and practice religion by compelling Us in speech to acknowledge their gender Faith as both a physical and moral reality.
Democrats ignore the right to life and then they push Jewish talmud law which is abortion all the way up to birth. This is the United States not israel. I don't know if one Democrat politician who doesn't support the Jewish talmudic law on abortion rather than supporting the Constitution
To both? So we can hold those judges accountable?
Most corrupt, criminal SCOTUS IN HISTORY. Term limits, legal consequences for Thomas and Alito.
Only Thomas and Alito? That's pretty one sided.
Ok then...add Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts to the list.@@dlc2112dlc
Why are you a communist ?
Tfg is simply the figurehead of an America that's off the rails. We need to adapt. We need to make some corrections. And we need to make changes to SCOTUS before they do irreparable harm to the country. Of course, that is just one problem, but this is too limited a forum to get into it all. But most who read this know.
If it's that bad the legislature can impeach.......
Something is needed, we can't have someone like Justice Thomas who's been compromised, and whose wife is involved in all sorts of stuff, remain on the bench for life when he won't even recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.
MINIMALLY there need to be ethics for recusal, where it's no longer up to the Justice to decide if they'll recuse themselves for conflict of interest. We need an ethics code that says they WILL recuse for conflicts of interest, period end of sentence.
No public office or position, anywhere in state, should be unlimited.
As a conservative, I agree.
Interesting how left is all of a sudden support this idea after conservatives took over the supreme Court.
I know let's enforce this the first year Democrats take over the supreme Court.
The only government positions that I know are unlimited are the presidential positions of Putin in Russia, Xi in China and Kim Jong Un in North Korea. Surprise, they are all dictators who have crushed democracy.
@@JOECURR1488So!!
Other than the Supreme Court!
Both Canadian senators and justices retire at age 75. Even the Vatican retires cardinals at 80.
"We should aspire to be more like Canada or Mexico"
LOLOLOL
You guys need to build the wall
Yeah... I don't get the rationale behind Justices dying in their posts.
What has that got to do with it?
I think there is also a 15 year limit, or age 75, whichever comes first.
Way to reframe the issue. This isn't about age it's about corruption.
Dems have a nasty habit of calling everything that doesn't go their way "corruption".
Agree, it's not about the number; its the senility
10 PERCENT FOR THE BIG GUY 👦
@@DrJillBidenLOLOLOLIt is NOT about 'senility' - stop being so prejudiced against old people. The unethical, prejudiced behaviour that is the problem is a feature of both old and young. Witness your own prejudice.
@@ykrgfk LOL 😆 Biden doesn't even know where he is most of the time and he can't even take questions 😂 🤣 😅!!!!
*Term limits should have happened a LONG time ago*
The Senate and Congress also!
Would you still want term limits if the court was a liberal majority?
Originally it wasn't thought to be needed - only much older justices were appointed at the end of their career, with maybe 15 or 20 years at most. But republicans started appointing younger and younger people, like Roberts then kavanaugh who could be there 40 years
@@braddavid902yes, every president should be able to appoint one or two so that the court actually reflects the will of the people as expressed thru elections
@@braddavid902 I sure would
Following textualism we would still have americans worth only 3/5 of a person.....so much for textualism 😮
Read Dred Scott......😢
Isn't that what they want?
The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments wrote the Three-Fifths clause out of the Constitution.
From someone who teaches constitutional law, the 3/5 compromise DID NOT speak in any way about the "humanity" of any people. Rather, it settled a numerical dispute between the Northern and Southern states at the Constitutional Convention over how enslaved African-Americans were to be counted in regards to total state populations for seats in the proposed U.S. House of Representatives. Free blacks were to be counted the same way as all whites in the states, and thus there was no issue and they were not in play here. The issue came about because the Southern states wanted their whole slave populations counted with respect to seat apportionment in the House, something that would give them a HUGE advantage due to their large slave populations. By contrast, the North opposed this because of their small slave populations and the fact that enslaved people essentially had no rights and was thus unfair to count this mass of people who could not enjoy the fruits of citizenship. With that, there was a deadlock until Delegate James Wilson of Pennsylvania (who was an abolitionist) proposed a compromise where 3/5 ratio of the slave populations would be counted as opposed to the state's entire slave populations. To break it down in mathematical figures, every five slaves would count as three free people, thus 50 enslaved people would count as 30 free people or 100 enslaved people would count as 60 free people. This compromise was accepted by both sides as it significantly reduced the amount of power southern states would have otherwise had, while still allowing them to count a percentage of their slave populations. If you think they controlled matters too much before the Civil War, imagine it without the 3/5 compromise. All in all, it had nothing to do with anyone's humanity, but exclusively about the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives.
@@historyprofessor1985 Seriously? Are you seriously suggesting that counting slaves AT ALL in the determination of representation was not a grotesque profanation of the principles of representative government? Seriously?
Such a likable, smart, and completely detached from reality man. He's like a physicist discussing the interesting physics of fire, while your house is burning down.
Hahaha that is exactly what I got.
He wouldn't dare criticize the institution that he was once a member, and is currently an alumni, of.
Why didn’t any of you ask if he thinks Trump committed insurrection? Wouldn’t that have been the most obvious thing to ask while he’s there? You are all being too polite.
Why ask when he obviously knows he did?
Sadly those guys are afraid to upset “the applecart “.
They should be shouting about the hiring of NBC MSNBC of former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniels. She assisted djtRuMp with the COUP…the Insurrection. Yet, these guys REMAIN SILENT!!SHAME on THEM!🇺🇸🗽
Him speaking out unnecessarily could cause problems with the court.
Because they know he believes that! The whole court believes he has, they let that determination stand when they overturned the 14th amendment ballot appeal. And they just reinforced it by allowing New Mexico to bar a candidate from a state ballot for being an insurrectionist
Watching his interviews during this tour, he's been pretty clear that he doesn't want to comment on any cases that are appearing before the court. He doesn't want to appear as a 10th judge.
The problem I see with a pure textualist interpretation of the Constitution is how the Preamble demonstrates the purpose of government. Consider these words: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The recent SCOTUS decisions people have problems with don't promote the general Welfare of America, by a long shot!
"Promote the general welfare" is a curious phrase. Conservatives would argue the use of the word "promote" rather than "provide". I'd say that "general welfare" includes opportunities and paths for the poor to elevate themselves and for extreme cases it means giving a hand to the destitute that can't elevate themselves. It also includes stuff like public roads, public schools, public parks, public water resources, clean environment, reproductive care, child care, senior care, disability care, etc. The whole point isn't just to promise prosperity but make paths to it.
Promoting the general welfare involves more than a pay check. I don't see a decision allowing unlimited political contributions that can't be traced, or the decision to do away with Roe to be promoting the general welfare. A good bit of the Republican policies don't promote the general welfare. If such things are confusing, I'd say having states officially named Commonwealths demonstrates what the Founders considered the promoting the general welfare. They weren't Communists.@@saeklin
I don't buy this apology for the current SCOTUS. Well said, but we should still "wake up" to the corruption therein.
Why? The US has no redress for corrupt Supremes.
If Breyer thinks Scalia is " a really good guy", I don't want to hear anything else he has to say.
or Thomas
He sounds delusional, tbh. No politics in SCROTUS? Give me a break!
Enjoyed what he had to say but the description was very misleading. I didn’t hear one word from him regarding term limits for the SCOTUS.
Agree… no clue why that title is there
Yes - "life changes" since 1859 - 13 circuits require 13 judges and a BINDING code of ethics ... SCOTUS REFORM actually isn't a matter of textualism ... it just makes SIMPLE COMMON SENSE!
Absolutely correct!! Amen
Breyer is living in a dream world.
He's not affected by the SCOTUS rollbacks of the rights of women, Black people, workers, poor people, homeless people, voters, old people etc. No ruling from SCOTUS will ever impact him because he's white, male & wealthy--& insulated by his wealth.
So of course he's acting like all that matters are the lofty principles & how great that makes the US. But the US isn't upholding its principles when it comes to women, Black ppl, workers etc, & SCOTUS needs to be expanded NOW.
He's an Israeli
His early life section protects him from any criticism
Pssst ....your indoctrination is showing.
@@eyesseeyou803Psst, your indoctrination is showing as well.
@@DrJillBidenLOLOLOL Ah, antisemitism. I wondered when you were going to show up.
I hear and understand what he says, and what his book might say. But actions speak louder than words and seeing what the Supreme court has been doing, and accepting all those lavished gifts. Tells a different story. And I bet he knew about all those gifts that were accepted. And how is has no opinion what is going on. Doesn't he realize he is no longer on the seat. That is the problem with a lot of people. Don't want to upset others. I for one will not be buying his book.
If Justice Breyer, who I do respect as a serious Justice, is unwilling to confront the truth: that these current judges are flagrantly political, then there is nothing else I'd like to hear from him in regards to the Court.
He sure played cute with important questions from Kristen Welker.
Disgusted with his interview.
Noncommittal answers.
Expected more definite replies from him even if contrary to current SCOTUS.
He certainly must know about the corruption in the current scotus. I was waiting for someone to ask him if the conservative justices that lied in their confirmation hearings about Roe, committed perjury. Also, what about the conservative justices getting bribes from billionaires. He seems to have his head in the clouds or can't even think in his love of scotus bubble.
Yeah, he lives in delusion, thinking its about textualism or originalism vs. pragmatism. These legal theories are justifications for desired political outcomes.
Exactly. 🎯
Pragmatism is the logical approach in many discussions, but Judge Michael Luttig was right that the originalist approach to the 14th amendment section three is the only logical choice in discussing Trump.
The Man is an insurrectionist, that means that he cannot participate in the General or any election for public office
Good freaking point!!!
Well Morning Joe, why didn’t you bring that up?
Justice is not supposed to be influenced by political power. It is supposed to be an impartial mediator of the law. There are good reasons why the current SCOTUS has lost so much public trust.
Do something about Cannon....this ridiculous 2 scenarios...asking the jury to interpret the law-instead of the judge explaining the law to them-.....
The snail analogy is perfect. Trump leaves a trail of slime behind him wherever he goes.
Not politics! Please!!!
But Trump always puts -Amer- 'I' -ca- first.
All due respect to Justice Breyer, but it's fairly plain to see that politics, along with corruption, plays a huge role in the decisions being handed down by the current SCOTUS.
I have the outmost respect for justice Breyer.
He almost made me forget about the Federalist Society.
Everyone cries term limits like the problem isn't that Dixie elects the Klan
Unfortunately you describe where Iive.... I love the coast. Thank oil companies , corruption, corporations: $$$.
Is it the Klan or capitalism?
@@suehines2581sounds like you should move?
The Klan? There are only around 3000 Klan members left in this country...stop hyperventilating.
Sue Hines I was born and raised in Alabama and at 83 I still live here, moving to Fairhope soon. But I still speak out against Trump Turbeville Katie Britt and all Republicans Republicans every chance I get. Vote blue please
You know that's all fine and good until billionaires are buying out judges I think he's kind of conveniently forgetting that. Damage control much?
He's a little too happy/clappy to me. SCOTUS and the courts have failed us so miserabley, how could anyone have any respect for the law?We have to follow the law, but we don't have to respect it!
This title is a lie. Breyer never weighed in on SCOTUS term limits.
Donald Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, but got to nominate three Supreme Court Justices. The most urgent need is to get rid of the Electoral College, a provision of the Constitution meant to enhance the political power of slaveholders.
Maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg should of took the hint from Obama to retire while he was in office? Why the "term limit" talk when things don't go your way?
@@Mr.White10-65 Many prominent legal scholars of both liberal and conservative leanings have been advocating term limits for fifty years. Do a little research into the condition of Justice William O. Douglas during the last several years of his tenure on the Court and you will understand why.
@@markkozlowski3674 I will, but it won't change the point I made.
@@Mr.White10-65 And while you are at it, do a little research into the drive of Speaker of the House Gerald Ford's campaign to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren. Also look into Tom DeLay's campaign to impeach several liberal federal judges in the 1990's.
@@Mr.White10-65 Also do some research in Speaker of the House Gerald Ford's campaign to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren.
There are 2 campers. One puts on his shoes to run away from the bear. The other is Clarence Thomas who jumps into his RV
SCOTUS should have a Term Limits
Canada has a good model for this. "A judge holds office during good behaviour until he or she retires or attains the age of 75 years, but is removable for incapacity or misconduct in office before that time by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons." Similarly, we have a 75-year age limit for Senators.
And there's certainly been misconduct among some justices...
@corgilove2070 yes there has. Most recently Russel Brown. It wasn't for judicial impropriety though, just a drunken tirade while on vacation. Imagine if the US had such a low bar for removal. That would be progress.
No discussion of SCOTUS term limits. Misleading.
The justice system should be APOLITICAL, not party based… the idea that Supreme Court Justices should be able to be have free holidays paid for by billionaires, the idea that billionaire wives can be allowed to influence Supreme Court Justices… utterly crazy… JUDGES SHOULD INTERPRET LAW OBJECTIVELY NOT POLITICALLY!!
A law applies to all people equally. Except Trump and uncle Thomas
Pssst......😂😂😂😂😂
Term limits are a nice idea, but there's no viable political route for getting there. The only solution is voting BLUE (which more people should have done in 2016 .... would have spared us this dumpster fire).
Agreed, Dementia Daddy is a dumpster fire. But the Democrats ran with Hillary and the slogan "It's her turn"...LOL
Running Hillary as a candidate and Ruth Bader Ginsburg not taking the hint to retire are REALLY the reasons why you are in what you believe to be a "dumpster fire".
I think it is very difficult for a lot of people to accept just how quickly and drastically things have changed in this country, and I can understand why. So much of what is currently happening was unthinkable and would have sounded absurd just a decade or two ago. I'm sure that in Breyer's experience, what he's saying is true. But it is true about a scotus that no longer exists. I hope we can get back to that vision of justice some day--I really do believe in the importance of people with different views moving this country forward together and finding common ground--but right now there's no question that extreme partisanship has corrupted our courts at every level, and the people behind it are hoping everyone who might oppose them will be convinced we're just being alarmist so they can continue to twist our laws to their liking without any resistance or consequences. Breyer's approach to interpreting the constitution is brilliant and I'm glad he's working hard to pass on his knowledge, but sadly I don't think he's right about the current state of scotus.
This guy just claimed recent decision by Scotus is not based on politics, what is he smoking ?
Lately they're based on pure Christofascism
Hiring a woman who threw her own family under the bus? Your friends say a lot about yourself. Someone at nbc has the same integrity as Mcdaniels.
I had to unsubscribe from NBC & affiliates due to the hiring of a traitor. Bad news.
Breyer explains things concerning law better than most of the current Justices.
BRAVO Justice Breyer!!!
Justices can be bought with post retirement jobs.
Na Justices are being
Bought With Life Term Hunting Trips, RV Travel, Yacht Trips, World Travel you name it!
@@TheMadelineTVexactly what I was thinking! We've already got two justices(that we know of) who have been bought! Not sure about Kavanagh. Where did he get that money to pay those huge bills off? Maybe that was his buying off.
No matter what rule or law you can come up with, no matter how good or well intentioned it is, there is someone out there who will corrupt it!
“This is not political.” What?! All justices are appointed by presidents who are by their very nature political.
Justice Stephen Breyer is an amazing person... respect !
Going on the track record of the USA..... Nothing will be done.
One of the best interviews I've ever watched on American News! I wish I was that fifth grader the judge was teaching, I might have learned something more valuable than many others I sat through.
Terrific interview… what a great guest. 👏🏻👍🏻🙏🏻😃
It would have been nice if the clip matched the title
I’ve noticed this has been happening more frequently as of late?
I feel like he is out of touch and has no idea how different things are in these times.
Joe , Mika, and company showed so much respect for this man. I love that.
How not to answer a question. He’s just a smooth talker, but not saying anything.
He sure likes to hear his own voice.
Textualism fails to meet the needs of our modern republic and society because of one factor: context. Context changes. New factors and situations which are entirely novel to the framers of each paragraph of the Constitution and its amendments. The clear and amazing combination of intellect and wisdom of Justice Breyer is something we are missing in six of the nine justices currently on the Supreme Court.
Hey MSNBC,
nowhere in this clip does fmr Justice Breyer weigh in on SCOTUS term limits! Do better!
What a great man to interview and Joe didn't interrupt him once
Mmmm...I think Joe remained silent because...
What can you say to someone like that who should know better. Hoping for wisdom and SC insight, but only getting smiling and outdated platitudes about the current state of affairs in the SC.
Why can't Fmr. Justice Breyer still be on the Court? Definitely going to read his book.
He voluntarily retired...
@@corgilove2070 Well, yeah, I understand that. I'm simply saying that we as a public would benefit from justices more in the shape of Breyer than the likes of Kavanaugh or Coney Barrett...
This was 100% a political decission. He is not getting younger so he retired while a Democrat is still President to be replaced by a liberal judge (Judge Jackson). Imagine, he wouldn't have done that, dies in 2 years and Trump is President again? Then we would have 7:2 instead of the bad 6:3 ....
and the electoral college should be done away with. not needed anymore
Hey Mr. Breyer, how about some INTEGRITY in the SC? Yes? No? Do you think that would matter?
How far we have fallen. What a shame.
Breyer is 85 years old and still speaks with a clarity few, half his age, can match.
I wonder how different the current SCOTUS is from the ideal he discusses. I suspect they are two, far different, animals indeed.
💙💙💙yes we need to change not go backwards 💙💙💙💙💙💙
If its not politics, Steve, then why are these justices taking so much money and gifts from rich white republican men?
Hes dancing around, they always try to protect their institution.
This was delightful. I was so glad he wasn't rushed along to keep pace with live tv. Whether you agree or disagree, there is something to be learned from the man.
Mr. Justice Breyer, the right book at the right time. Thank you.
I think the recent lean toward Textualism IS that "political motivation" people are taking issue with, because the "as written" language" is built for an older version of the country which Conservatives are desperate to return us to. So Textualism is to their political advantage.
For my money, I can't understand the argument for Textualism/Originalism as a form of "honoring the founding fathers' intentions" when literally the guy who wrote it said "reevaluate this thing like once every 20 years because future generations shouldn't be strictly beholden to what we wrote". Jefferson was SUPER clear in his intention, so to say we can't change a single word in the Constitution is actually the OPPOSITE of "Originalism".
12 minutes about his pragmatism book, not term limits. The title is misleading
980% will not read this book, because they can't.
We need Democrats to have all 3 branches and push them to impeach Clarence!! Should absolutely be limits!!
his answer(s) when asked about Bush v Gore, and others showing that the court acts very quickly. In this case, the DC court was very clear about immunity. Any first year law student could answer the case in 20 minutes. The court is stalling and helping trump/ period end of sentence.
Like all Supreme Court justices he is in love with himself. They are all full of it.
The rule of law, what a bunch of BS.
I'm SO glad that FINALLY liberal jurists are communicating their jurisprudence. I like the term, judicial pragmatism, and we need that, in the information age, we needed a term to distinguish conservative jurisprudence from liberal jurisprudence.
When the Founders created lifetime appointments for the judiciary the average lifespan for an upper class white man was around late 40s/early 50s. Our early presidents generally appointed Justices in their early 30s, so they were expecting judges to be on the bench around 18, 20 years. Now that Justices are living so much longer, 18 year term limits seem reasonable, in fact actually, the best way to be in alignment with what the Founders wanted.
I like Justice Breyer. What he says is the essence of what interpreting the law is all about. ❤
I would have liked his answer to how much Leonard Leo influences the SCOTUS and federally-appointed judges around the country.
Answers to pointed questions into the current judicial climate are vital.
The president is limited to 8 years. It seems reasonable to limit a justice to eight as well. But the senate majority leader should not be permitted to deny a vote on the presidential appointments.
Term limits sound great.
Really good and interesting segment.
Fantastic episode.
The Justice was a pleasure to hear from.
Thank you all
💙💙👍💙💙
I didn't listen to all of it, because...meh......
It’s absurd that any position would be unlimited. There’s ZERO accountability.
Members of the UK Supreme Court are retired by law at the age of 75.
It was 70 but the right wing Conservative Party raised it to 75 some years ago.
Where is the Justice's take on term limits?
Former Justice Breyer’s remarks are dissatisfying.
Have Sheldon Whitehouse back to rebut Justice Breyer’s remarks better yet get them both on the same broadcast!
Great conversation
Was that a conversation?
Supreme Court justices should be limited to no more than 12 years.
He should have said the snails were his lunch.
The judge is delusional
"Textualism" did a lot of good with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled Section 3 null and void.
Biden should dissolve the "Supreme Court" for a while... He probably can't, but somebody needs to ride herd and rein them in.
Not just a term limit (12 years), but no one can be an SJ justice before the age of 55, and they must have been a presiding judge somewhere for at least ten years. That way, they leave a trail we can use to figure out if they are too extreme, or lie during the confirmation hearing. No more lifetime appointments. The President only gets 8 years.
This republic is an example to the planet. It must be enabled to to survive in a changing world. Make enlightened decisions!
...and THAT'S the reason Democracy is so difficult.
Have you guys commented on RRMcD appointment yet? Because if nothing is said I'm gonna be done here too!
The basic difference between an authoritarian point of view and a democratic point of view ... the the first will no be changed by reason or reasoning. When the first are empowered as "justices" and several are loaded at one time, you have an authoritarian doctrine that will not be changed by reason ... ie unreasonable and supported by force..
He can't say that it is about method of reading and that it's not "political" because the Federalist Society (which is linked to GOP) chooses only textualist judges to put up to the Supreme Court, and these textualists are chosen by a Republican President and a Republican majority senate.
I alsso noticed: These interviewers arer much more discerning in their discussions with this gentleman other than the fractured interview shown on CNN.
Retired Justice Bryer's antics in explanation. It's giving us a complete resolution on the mechanics of the highest court on the land. Perhaps the process of accountability. As a third pillar of democracy, on why urgency for one and not another??