It’s ‘possible’ Dobbs could be overturned: Justice Breyer interview part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 06. 2024
- Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer sits down with Kristen Welker to discuss the Dobbs ruling, U.S. democracy and the future of the court. Watch more of Breyer's interview with Meet the Press on Sunday, March 31.
» Subscribe to NBC News: / nbcnews
NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows.
Connect with NBC News Online!
Breaking News Alerts: link.nbcnews.com/join/5cj/bre...
Visit NBCNews.Com: www.nbcnews.com/
Find NBC News on Facebook: / nbcnews
Follow NBC News on Twitter: / nbcnews
Get more of NBC News delivered to your inbox: nbcnews.com/newsletters
#SupremeCourt #StephenBreyer #Politics
This is the problem with the United States in a nutshell: Those that should be talking sense will not speak and those who cannot talk sense will not stop speaking.
@jerbear1601 Great comment!
THANK YOU! This was well said and sums it up perfectly.
...and those who cannot hear what's not being said are claiming to know things.
Single best comment in the history of CZcams comments!
Agree
This shroud of secrecy around the court makes them not trustworthy to the public.
The blatant corruption and twisting the law to fit their desired outcome makes them not trustworthy to anything.
Why did he consent to an interview if he can't say anything, I guess he just wanted to promote his book.
What do YOU think!!!!
Yeah...blah blah blah...I'm an old white guy who has retired but maybe I can sell a few useless books.
Magas are allergic to books.we get it.
That’s exactly what he wanted to do, promote his book. Welker just wanted dirt, juicy gotcha questions. And she’s not all that good at thinking on her feet. I found him to be of high integrity not going down to her level. It’s not his goal to “make news” and she should have prepared herself better to get Justice Breyer to engage rather than to expect him to dish gossip.
Yey he sat there and claimed they didn't have the same reason to answer these questions or give a personal opinion on anything. He was there promoting a book to make money & shes there to promote his book and make money.
A bit of a misleading headline, since he said anything is possible as a general comment, he wasn't indicating probabilities
He’s intentionally vague.
This issue could devastate the GOP for a long time to come. To not be able to change it provides us voters. Right to life attacked on this issue and it did hurt democrats all throughout the 70s and 80 and beyond.
Your comment saved me wasting the time to watch it. (Along with the other "says nothing" comments to back you up.)
Since Dobbs overturned settled law, it would seem even easier to overturn unsettled law. You could always say that Clarence Thomas's vote was for sale. Which it was.
Considering that the SCOTUS overturned the Dobbs decision, wouldn't it be considered settled law now?
If people think it was settled law when Dobbs was passed, shouldn't it be the same now?
Why stop there? Let’s bring back Plessy versus Ferguson
And Alito
@@1965Grit the problem with Dobbs is that the right wing "justices" perjured themselves to be seated.
I won't mention alito, "Boofer" and Thomas's questionable financial histories. Once they had the numbers, they ignored the clear wishes of "we the people".
Typical right wing b/s.
And still is
Why accepting an interview if you're not interested in answering questions? What did he think they were going to ask him?
he's selling a book, and archiving his likeness
Yeah, as a FORMER Supreme Court Justice before whom NO cases are pending I'm not sure why he can't comment on current issues. If anything I would think that what's off limits are past private deliberations.
He sits by designation on the 1st Circuit still so not entirely accurate.@@ZZSmithReal
IDK, maybe ask him about his book, which he was there to promote!?
@@ZZSmithReal No, because if he gave his opinion, it would become part of other people's arguments against SCOTUS, cheeto, and a bunch of cases. And he shouldn't do that, unfortunately. The fact he commented on Bush/Gore makes it pretty clear what hes likely to say today in a similar sleazy circumstance, though.
Non-answering questions is not going to endear the public to the dignity and legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Except, there are good and big reason why a judge or justice should not make comment on current or future case law. But yes, it is very frustration how close to the vest they are. The part that I'm curious about is his feelings on the situation with justices receiving gifts.
It’s not Justice Breyer’s job to endear the public to the dignity and legitimacy of the Supreme Court. He DID his job with dignity and legitimacy and he was being asked to get down in the gutter and confirm what we already know about the currently dishonest judges. Shame on her for playing games with his time. It was demeaning, condescending, and embarrassing to watch. She should never be given another important interview.
Honestly! If he doesn’t want to answer questions, fine. BUT THEN DECLINE THE INTERVIEW! So annoying. He thinks he’s being so clever, and he just wants to promote his book 🙄🤨
@@rachelhforsyth-tuerck9509absolutely! This was the most irritating interviewee I've seen! She's being mistreated by his snarky sarcastic evasions! And arrogance.
I guess justices call it "professionalism" in retirement, I'd call it professional cowardice.
He said a whole lot of nothing. I don't know why they aired it.
Yep Liberals love holding to their high minded ideals while the country slides toward Fascism. The most important thing isn't using your credibility to make the public aware of the danger we are in. This most important thing a former Justice can do is avoid the appearance of trying to influence The Court. A textual reading of legal norms if you will. One could hardly expect Justice Breyer to consider the pragmatic interpretation of norms when the US is staring down totalitarianism.
I'm wondering if you are familiar with the difference between textualism and pragmatism? He said quite a lot actually
If you have a chance to ask or pose questions to a Former Supreme Court Justice, one that has been vocal or adament about abortion or other issues and you are a News Org, you air it, no matter what was discussed. It's importance makes the mark to air regardless of what answers were given.
Waste of time interview!! Nothing gained here !!
They should have got John Oliver to dub over Breyer, changing the answers to jokes. It would have been more informative.
NBC SUCKS FOR HIRING RONNA
Big time!!!
Lll
Yep. Pathetic.
You just want your old hate group back fool...
Maybe there is a reason behind it. I have never been a big fan of Ronna but, somehow I believe she will spill the beans on the party. Let’s wait and see.
Kristen Welker was not the right person to interview Fmr Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. She should have asked him the differences between Pragmatism vs Textualism and why he chooses former and examples in his career. He kept pointing to his book. I think it is insulting to sit down with Judge to discuss current politics and active cases. He warned her a few times (and if she would have brought it back to his book, she might have been able to discuss it without directly inquiring about it).
Yeah she was pressing on issues she should not have pressed. Breyer loves to run his mouth and I love him for that but he's not gonna step out of line on this. Additionally he still hears cases occasionally on the 1st Circuit so he's technically active although he wont be hearing any politically charged cases most likely you just dont know. They should have hired an a reporter with a good legal background that understands this.
didn't think it was possible, but she's worse than Chuck Todd
At this critical time, it takes people who are willing to speak up. Justice Stephen Breyer is NOT speaking up.
And he won’t! He’s a man of ethics and it would be ethically irresponsible for him to speak publicly on any of the National Enquirer style gotcha questions she keeps throwing at him. She as unprofessional as it gets and is WAY out of her league in this interview when it comes to who she’s interviewing.
That interview was worhless
Entirely worthless!
If the Constitution needs to be changed, it’s for the people to change - not SCOTUS.
It’s clear to me he’s only there to sell his book 📕
Once it was obvious he wasn’t going to answer any of the questions that the Country wants him to weigh in on, she should end the discussion. Happy Retirement Judge and thank you for your many years of service.
What is the point of this "interview"?
To sell his book, of course!
Blah blah blah...I am an irrelevant old white guy but wish I was still a Supreme.
Stephen Bryer should be hired as a consultant to teach ethics to the current court
Breyer has no ethics!
And to teach ethics to NBC's bosses regarding hiring Ronna McDaniel.
Breyer avoids irritating everyone, but we are interested in his opinions and I wish he had made his personal theories and expectations known. It is important to interview him and hear him behave in an honorable manner, as he did while on the bench. If the current court behaved honorably, we wouldn't have such a low opinion of current judges.
That’s why things get completely out of control, because people who understand the law, sit back and don’t comment, or come out against bad decisions.
Absolutely. Talk in circles about what are clearly obvious political actions by the court.
You gotta respect Justice Breyer reluctance in discussing open and old cases. You want to know his opinion? Read his dissent. Whether he agrees or disagrees, he has too much respect for the court to sit here and make news. The ruling is the ruling and that's that.
Why agree to a interview if you're not going to say anything? This was a huge waste of time
Because it was free ad for his book.
What a waste of time
AND,,,JUST WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT,,,OL TRUMPER,,,YEA,,,ONCE AGAIN,,,YOU CAN’T HIDE FROM ME,,,/US,,,,WERE DEFINITELY,,WATCHING,,,EVERYTHING!!!!!
like someone else said, he’s there to sale a book, and that’s all.
Why do we even give anytime to these justices. Before they go to the bench, they cannot air their opinions, while they are in, they cannot share their opinion, after they have left they cannot share their opinion.
Breyer is a good person. A thoughtful and kind person.
I wish he would travel to high schools and give talks to students about what being a "thinker" means.
🤦♀Please! If he's not going to answer the questions, don't have him on air.
he doesnt want to think for you.
certainly not in a 2 part special.
I did not care for Breyer as a Justice but I have a ton of respect for him in this interview.
I wound up stopping before this interview was over. I gained nothing I didn’t already know. I know no more now after listening to part of this than before. He didn’t answer anything. This is what we DON’T need in the times that we are currently living in. We need more courage. The days of things being NORMAL are over. I don’t mean to be facetious. But he is no longer on the court, he should be able to FREELY speak his mind. There is no one on the court outside of the 3 liberal judges that is paying him any attention or cares. So, him pussyfooting around these questions makes no sense from we’ve already been living with. I can no longer respect this silence on important issues when the state of our very nation is under siege and attack by those 5 judges that sat in opposition to him. No wonder we’re losing when true courage and truth is needed to speak and stand up. I don’t find him charming and it bothered me how many times he chuckled while he evaded those questions.
Man said a whole lot of nothing 😑
both of them garbage.
It’s encrypted you have to investigate the clues 🕵️ and then you have to check for legitimacy 🔬and then you have to not 👨⚖️ judge but discern and then you apply it to your personal goals and beliefs. It’s the only fair rules I can think of for all people playing The Game of Life!
He avoided putting his foot in his mouth, stepping on someone else's toes or influence peddling in a way that might compromise and already unpopular Supreme Court. The reporter knew she would be outfoxed (this isn't #45 after all) but pressed on anyway. As Justice Breyer noted, their objectives were at odds.
He basically said, I'm not on the SC anymore and we will simply have to see how it plays out with the current players for these questions. Now that you know what I can and will answer, I'd be happy to respond.
The Supreme Courts job is not to make laws but the current trump court took that rule and threw it out the window. If this man were still on the court we wouldn't be talking about Roe.
This was not a waste of time as many have said. It was a case in point of how a person of honesty and integrity comports themselves in a professional manner with respect to their former position. We are not used to seeing this and perhaps hoped he would be critical of the court or arm chair quarterback their decisions. I for one, found this to be interesting.
First time I've heard him speak since retiring. Remarkable intellect for 85. I saw a little arrogance. I saw a surprising amount of political posturing. I saw fear. What does he fear? She should have asked that. He only was on there to sell his book. He struck me as a very odd bird.
Do the people “deserve” to know before the election? It’s not a matter of deserving anything. We NEED TO KNOW. This isn’t an entitlement issue.
I applaud Justice Breyer for refusing to provide his opinion about recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. I wish all the Justices had its ethical compass.
So you applaud him for getting out of bed just to be seen on tv, because interviewing him is pointless. He should have kept his ethics in the garden at home.
@@ClifftonCrowder-yt2gt I do not know the circumstances on which Justice Breyer agreed to the interview. He may have agreed to the interview to discuss his new book, and then the reporter took the interview in other directions. Judicial ethics prohibit a judge from speaking on a matter that is or will likely appear before the court. As a former Supreme Court Justice, Breyer knows that his comments on decisions of the Court since he left or about decisions that might appear before the Court will be used by the media as a tenth member of the court. In my opinion, Breyer was responsible to avoid providing his opinion on these matters. He did speak to the opinions he expressed in his book that were based on opinions he authored on the court. The fact that the reporter chose to air an interview where Breyer did not provide substantive opinions on so many matters is a decision of the media network. I do not blame Justice Breyer. I wish other Justices would avoid providing their opinions to the media on issues that might appear before the Court, like Justice Alito speaking about the 2020 election. I stand by my previous comment.
Totally. I certainly hope that the current court is the least ethical one that we'll ever see. Sad to think that there's an argument to be made that *Kavanaugh* isn't even among the three least ethical sitting justices.
He’s not on the court anymore, surely he’d be allowed to talk openly!?
I’ve recently watched several interviews with Justice Breyer and, while I deeply respect his experience and the esteemed position he holds, I found myself expecting a more persuasive or enlightening perspective, particularly on topics like textualism and its alternatives. Despite his profound knowledge, I felt that the discussions often left me searching for more substantive arguments or clearer alternatives to the methodologies he critiques. It’s valuable for public figures, especially those in such influential roles, to communicate their insights in a way that not only reflects their depth of understanding but also resonates and enlightens the broader audience, offering tangible viewpoints or solutions.
He knows full well that Alito was behind the leak... but he simply CAN NOT say anything about it. You see the pain in his face when Kristen Welker brought that subject up. He knows the b.s. move that Alito did to pull this off and he's p.o'd.
Kristen again proves that she needs to do more homework on the person being interviewed. Surprisingly, she has risen to the level of Meet The Press host with her continued inability to conduct compelling interviews.
Her interview with Ronna McDaniel was the worst interview I've ever seen in my life!!
@@WalterDempsey-bj6utShe can add this to her ever-expanding repertoire of bad interviews!
Agreed! I find it painful to watch her anchor MTP. Please hire someone else
That's why Trump likes doing interviews with her.
she's actually worse than Chuck Todd, didn't think that was possible
He is no longer on the court, so I don’t see why he is not answering the questions. 😡. The idea that two cells in a petri dish have more value than the wife of a woman or girl makes me furious.
He sees the justice system the same way the bishops in Rome see the church. Unfortunately, those who conform to this way of thinking end up ironically aiding in society's collapse by not touching ground enough. Mind you, those of them reading this will likely take offense, but I'm not saying it as an insult, but as a fact obvious to everyone but themselves. It is a hard thing to see clearly and acknowledge flaws in ourselves, but worse to pretend we have none serious enough to even entertain, which is how some flaws, lamentably, never get corrected.
Excellent program.
This is a total waist of time. Read his book if you want. But no info is coming out of his mouth.
So sad
The Supreme Court is so inconsistent. With the Colorado decision, they said the risk of states going their own way was a huge risk.
In Dodds v Roe, they decided it was stated' rights and will/have caused massive inconsistency across the states.
What's his issue? He's no longer a justice. You can speak freely.
He knew the score and retired at the best time - put aside his pride and didn’t gamble on the 2022 midterms even though Democrats kept the Senate and he could have stayed for two more years. Thank you Justice Breyer.
He made a backdoor deal to protect his son. You are either a liar or uneducated.
@@Facetiously.EsotericYou’re just gullible
@@bizygirl1 You are poorly educated.
This interview is a letdown, if one was expecting Breyer to be forthcoming on any of the current issues. Why bother watching Part 2?
Why in the world would NBC hire Ronna McDaniels???? Not at all sure what their idea in doing this was but there is no way I will ever believe a word out of her mouth!!
Why do ppl in the comments expect him to answer that question
Justice Breyer was the epitome of grace. I was stunned that he politely told her the line he wouldn't cross, which is normal. Yet, she basically tried over and over again by rephrasing the question trying to get a 'Got YOU' moment. Luckily, he was far smarter this woman. There were many things she could asked about but didn't. Shame on her for a terrible interview. I know that I won't watch Meet the Press again.
His opinion seems to be that to begin the decision-making process with a point-of-view will lead one to a mistaken decision - a trap in which many of us find ourselves.
Why did he resign? I wish he was still there and he obviously still has his wits about him. He would have made a fool of some of them.
Justice Breyer agreed to the interview but doesn’t seem to really want to answer any questions. I would take the hint and ask him one last question. Justice prior you agreed to come on the show and be interviewed. What would you like to say, about yourself about the law about the Supreme Court or about your book?
Words will never restrain the common law, which is based on equity.
As I listen to this interview, the more I wish there really was one.
Sounds like there's probably nothing said in his book. Got nothing from this interview and suspect his book is the same.
He seems like a really good man. He certainly seems capable of still doing the job!
Judge: "not gonna answer that, but you can go read my book"
Could we all please stop pretending that the conservative justices really *are* textualists/originalists except when that portrayal suits their ends?
Welp, she tried hard to get him to answer questions 😂
Why interview someone who does not want to answer simple questions.
Like defining what is a woman
@@robertbirch5676 What is a woman?
@@jinxterpinxter Ask Richie Mandow
@@robertbirch5676 So you don’t know what a woman is?
@@jinxterpinxter if you're confused look between your legs
Breyer: Just answer the questions...what do you have to fear by speaking truth.
Great listen 😮😊
“Shall we air this interview where the ex justice addresses nothing, only plugs his book?” Sounds good.
When he know it's best not to answer I respect his 'no comment.' There's a reason he knows to say nothing. His reaction tells me 'caution.'
You're right and it's a fact that he is a former Justice and I am certain he knows and has learned more than we do. Maybe I am wrong too...
A wise justice, no doubts! ☝🏼👌🏼🗳️🇺🇸💙🗳️🇺🇸💙🗳️🇺🇸💙
He is retired why can´t he answer that
What is the definition of "no" Ronna. There is plenty of news and pithy information in Judge Breyer's book. There are so many no's and an interviewer should have a little respect for the person being questioned and stop. .
Clarence Thomas gave that opinion to his wife who leaked it ! It’s the most probable explanation
Why didn't she ask about what is in the book? I didn't even hear what it was about. I am guessing RvW?
This is so good, and so important I'll go watch it on MSNBC! I record the show every Sunday although I don't always watch it! I'll just skip the part with Ronna McDaniel and catch this important part! I'll never watch or believe that Republican propagandist Ronna McDaniel!
So annoyed I wasted minutes of my precious life waiting to hear Byers speak on nothing and offer less of his opinion on anything.
???
Wow, I think he did answer all those questions. He just answered them in his decisions and again in the book. If he publicly campaigns now then what credibility or lack there of does any justice have? "You need to pay attention to what some of these justices are saying and doing" is what he would say out loud if he could.
He says ha about reading the constitution. Can't wait to buy this book 🙄
Why isn't he just telling the truth. If justices though people would tell the truth after they left the court they'd sure act different in the court.
Is he a former politician or justice?? Couldn’t tell with all the deflecting. Waste of airtime.
Why have an interview if he won't answer any questions?
@tomasso. It’s the journalist’s fault. She kept asking him questions on the same issue over and over again, in different ways, like a child who tries to get candies from his/her mother. She kept pressuring him in current hot political issues and she shouldn’t have. He was smart enough not to take the bait. This journalist is totally unqualified to interview him and also unethical.
What was this interview for
With respect to Justice Breyer, his retirement of a moderate, the passing of Justice Ginsburg, Mitch McConnell's uneven application of nominating a justice during an election opened the door of opportunity of the U.S. Supreme Court to veer hard right.
Why he doesn’t want to come close to this issue because he knows it was rigged.
Yes he did answer Bush v Gore and the Alito leak.
Very disappointing. As for who leaked Alito's crackpot draft about women's rights from the XVIII Century...It's Alito himself.
YUP,,,THATS EXACTLY,,WHAT I’M THINKING,,,,
No doubt.😡
Bingo!!!
It was just revealed before the House by a minister that was part of a right wing ultra conservative Christian group that pandered to Supreme Court judges to get laws overturned. They knew the Hobby Lobby case determination before it was announced. He admitted Alito told him at a luncheon months before.
Why isn't he still on the court?
I don' t want him to make news. I just want to hear his thoughts. He is not on the court anymore, surely he has the right to speak as freely as the lawyers and judges and former ones the Media Interviews all the time. *He's a charming old gent, but that's not why I turn on the news.*
It’s so unfortunate that we continue to hear every thought and opinion from individuals who don’t care about the consequences of their words, but very little from those who are actually subject matter experts. Instead of selling books Breyer should use his remaining time to speak about how we can get back on track by applying the principles of the constitution to a world that is ever changing.
Buy my book to get the answer to your question….
I notice, once again, that your transcription skips an important half minute of the discussion starting at 5:28. Bias?
I don’t think Breyer would have been able to influence the Court even if he had answered her questions. Most of those justices are only interested in the opinion of people who buy them things.
Well then…….no point in interviewing Justice Breyer on anything of consequence.
While he did admit that it was “possible” Dobbs could be overturned he didn’t seem very confident.
The reality is somewhere between the originalist and "living tree" approach
WTH? Say something pal
We got Alito shooting his mouth off at a reporter about a a case he will be hearing 😂
We got this guy who can’t comment on current events
Good grief
Poor guy just looked happy to talk to someone 😭
Breyer should not have retired in 2022, giving another appointment to Mitch McConnell.
The Senate was led by Schumer when he retired. Jackson took his place.
Why is he on if he ain't gonna talk about relevant cases?
Thanks justice Breyer just when we need leadership you won't step up to the plate
He was quite clear that his goal was not to "make news." So you had very different goals with this interview. And I can see why he was so circumspect (some would say "coy"), besides just trying to sell his book. This "headline" is totally misleading. His "could be overturned," was in the context of "anything's possible." Brother. Weak interviewer.
What was she supposed to do better?
Prior to SCOUTU taking up their position, each was asked their opinions on ROE VS WADE. And all said they would leave it alone. They lied!
Why did she interview him....
Isn't Breyer saying that decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America should be based, not on a sanitary, simplistic reading of the literal words of the Constitution (reductive), but instead on a wise and judicious understanding of the larger intent of the words of the Constitution as they relate to the Common Good and how that intent should be applied to the far more complex and morally nuanced times we live in. [This is just a layperson's vain riff. I wish the world was a better place for everyone.]
Do you think Breyer is so much wiser than those who wrote the constitution?
@@gopher7691No, but atleast he was the Justice during the 21st century not the 19th century justice. Things do change, the connotations of the words or documents may change or differ.
@@dentenunique3908 no they don’t.
@@dentenunique3908 the means for adapting to current circumstances are legislatures, not unelected justices writing their policy preferences into the constitution
Is there anyone at all with any integrity of any kind in D.C.?
I'll be reading his book in the same spirit he answers questions.