Breyer Warns Against Remaking The Court: 'What Goes Around Comes Around' | NPR
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2021
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has a warning to those who want to remake the court: Be careful what you wish for. In his new book, "The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics", Breyer argues that over time, public acceptance of Supreme Court opinions, even those you may disagree with, has become a habit - a hard-won habit that has fortified the rule of law as an essential part of U.S. democracy.
• Read more at n.pr/3z0LFI3
FOLLOW NPR ELSEWHERE
/ npr
/ npr
/ npr
www.npr.org/
![How Did The Wealthy Gain Power In The Past? - Yuval Noah Harari [2015] | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TYAKHLrr51w/mqdefault.jpg)
Talk about Court Packing in the last 8 years of his 12 years FDR Appointed 8 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices. One was affiliated with the Triple K group another was the last Justice to never attend Law School.
So?
@@jfrsnjhnsn So, the government and establishment have gone insane. It happens in cycles, but this is a big wave.
If the court is not political as Roberts says, why would the Democrats want to expand the court so they could appoint judges?
The court has ruled against conservatives several times. If it were purely political then that would not be the case.
A second argument would be that it’s not just conservative playing politics in the court when it comes to key issues. We liberals haven’t given in to their side on barely anything making it’s way to court.
@Space Rock
No president in the last 30 years has appointed a true bipartisan Supreme Court justice.
The Democrats are the ones who changed the rule from 60 votes in the senate to a simple majority, so live with the actions of your elected Democrat leaders.
Funny how quickly people like you forget who actually is at fault.
The republicans warned the Democrats if they change the rule from 60 to a simple majority it would came back to haunt them.
Now you have a Supreme Court justice giving the same warning.
Just remember if the Democrats pack the court now the republicans will be free to pack the courts when they have control.
Because he is wrong and it is political? If it wasn't why would both parties cate so much about who is on it?
"If the court is not political as Roberts says, why would the Democrats want to expand the court so they could appoint judges?"
Well yeah, because Roberts is lying. Clearly. He's a Republican and his party frequently touts the number of "conservative" judges they get appointed.
@@bobp1016 "Just remember if the Democrats pack the court now the republicans will be free to pack the courts when they have control."
The Republicans will do that anyway, and in case you've been in a coma since 2016, just did it. So there's no "if" about this, the Republicans are doing this and won't stop unless we put an end to their ability to do so.
I'm glad I heard him out until the end. His closing statement was legitimate.
People don't respect courts they fear jail big difference
Sorry Beyer the court need to be remade as far as the life time appointment. Should be 10 years tops then they have to be replaced. Also if the court is making screwed up decisions like the last one they should be able to get rid of a judge
AMEN!
The court is Fully Political, in spite of those that say that it is not.
The latest decision on the Texas Abortion law, is an example of it.
Their is a difference between right and wrong, accepting a wrong decision, does not make the decision right.
When the court majority is too conservative, the rights of liberals are totally ignored. Yes, pack the courts, to even the playing field.
The Texas abortion law is something that should be brought in the Congress and decided on a national level. No judicial institution should be responsible for creating the kind of precedence law like with roe vs wade.
Because the Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiff, by proxy it became law, but not a law written by the people. That’s why Texas and other states can pass these crazy rules because the courts is not where you legislate.
The Supreme Court did the right thing, it’s not their job to create law, ruling on a civil penalty where the sovereign in this case Texas can’t be a plaintiff, there’s no penal code violation. If the court is testing undue burden the Texas abortion law clearly states no undue burden on the defendant and it has its own tests for that.
Either make abortion legal through the Congress or don’t. Laws created outside of Congress is a tool for dictators not the other way around.
So you like courts only when stacked in your favor. Got it.
Well the court shouldn't be political. In fact the justices should have no political affiliation. That's the problem and if it can't be done that way it should be eliminated and those justice's that are political nerd to be removed.
They aren't political. That's a media invention.
The so-called "conservative justices" are merely adherents to what's called originalist judicial philosophy, which holds that laws should be interpreted as they were written, as intended by those who wrote the laws... as opposed to courts ruling based on what they personally think is right/fair.
@@williambrown8249 If that were actually true then they would leave their religion out of their rulings.
@@williambrown8249 The judges were appointed with support from a single party AND chosen because their rulings have shown favor to the ideals of that party. So yes, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch partisan judges. There are/have been justices like Thomas, Ginsberg, Scalia, etc who lean(ed) greatly to a side, but because they had bi-partisan support, they simply lean left or right, and can avoid the partisan label.
@@BeastieMK you’re attaching the partisan nature of their confirmations to the Justice themselves. You’re viewing them as more partisan because our politicians are now more partisan. For instance… you realize that not a single mind was changed by the shit show confirmation of Kavanaugh? That theatrical witch trial hoax wasn’t believed by a single person who was inclined to like his nomination. It only served to dig the heels of people who already had an opinion.
I am so fed up with this argument that we can't do anything because when the other team gets in they'll do something worse. We've been playing this lesser of two evils vs by antara voting life period and from what I see it always gets worse no matter what the Democrats do. It's almost like they're working in conjunction.
He’s one voice, time for him to bounce. We see he republicans screw with the court and we’re supposed to just accept it. Piss off
@@samudramanthan8645 You gonna spam the comments and pretend like a Republican majority on the court isn’t a problem and that no consequences are gonna come from it? Tell that to women in Texas right now.
@@grapesurgeon I like ranked choice voting, but it isn’t going to matter if the laws that are passed are revoked by the Supreme Court lol
@@samudramanthan8645 perhaps you should pull yourself together and get on with your awe inspiring life instead of being on here ? Or maybe you’re just someone talking shit. 😂
@@mckenziebraswell-miller2327 what’s the problem with a Republican-nominated majority on the court? We’ve endured decades of a leftist SCOTUS and only now you complain?
President Eisenhower once said, "I made two mistakes, and both of them are
sitting on the Supreme Court."
Earl Warren and William Brennan, Jr.,
Warms the cockles of your heart ,eh?
"yea, cause why stop the corruption when you can simply sit back and do nothing"
Wow he’s so amazing!
I got chills at the end
A few additional thoughts on the Court as it seems most people are woefully misinformed;
1) You can’t abolish the Court (unless you want to amend the Constitution and essentially destroy our form of government). That would take 2/3 majority votes in both houses of Congress and ratification by 38 of the 50 states. It will never happen and we should be glad it won’t.
2) The Congress COULD pack the Court. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices. However this would be a terrible idea and set us on the road to ruin. It is also very unlikely. FDR tried, at the height of his popularity, and failed.
3) the Court is not an activist Court like the one in Pakistan for instance. It cannot act on something it sees in the society or the government etc. It can only act on matters brought before it.
4) The Court is very unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade. If it does, however, then let the Congress pass a law affirming reproductive rights if the votes are there. Such a law would likely pass constitutional muster.
He's basically saying trust us because it could always be worse. No thanks...I'm done with them.
What do you mean when you say "I'm done with them"? What does that involve?
@@drsuessre14 That involves joining the ever growing push to restructure the court. It doesn't work but can be fixed. I'm a leftist not insurrectionist!!!
@@sisterstate7216 what doesn’t work? It’s funny to me that people (people of the left) have this false notion that judges ought to be political activist in their decision making. That’s not how it works. Judges are tasked with being objective neutral and detached.
It doesn’t work for you because the holdings do not agree with your view. That’s very narcissistic and short sided.
Oh a Supreme Court justice doesn’t want his power reduced? Shocking!
A democrat not wanting democrats to create an authoritarian dictatorship with a kangaroo court a la Venezuela. Shocking!
@@williambrown8249 bruh democrats are literally the party trying to make our system more democratic, as opposed to the Republican Party, which favors minority rule
@@FriarJoe66 packing the courts = democracy
Ok buddy lmao
@@williambrown8249 literally yes lmao, the Supreme Court is anti-democratic and the more judges there are, the more often they will be replaced by a president and congresspeople that are elected by the population of the country that is affected by their decisions
Vulvulza iPhone China 100% biden chungus
I was to expect Nina T to holler, " Off with his head "! I bet she is a hoot after a few cocktails.
They should have term limits like everyone else, no one should have a permanent job for life, they have flawed decisions like everyone else
Because they are mere humans. Term limits are needed to weed out the fake SCJ like Kavanaugh.
So what - we should listen to you? The 3 branch system is the best us flawed humans can come up with.
@@Aesop531 hey trumpy I didn’t say get rid of the three branches of government
The World is about to change, not just the Courts.
It’s already began.
This should retire and not pull another ruth bader ginsburg
I agree, let Biden appoint a younger judge while he has the power to do so, to wait is selfish. In the end if he waits, and is replaced by Republicans by another super conservative judge it will only serve to overshadow the legacy he wants to leave behind.
@@chellann its not easy giving up power like this. absolute power corrupts absolutely. you are not in his position and feel how much control he has over other people. ginsburg felt the same way they all do. giving up a position like this to go towards irrelevancy is easier said
If Breyer was the one who leaked the Dobbs Decision would he face civil or criminal charges?
And God knows we don't want to revolve at all cuz things are always going to just stay the same goodbye
As bad as things are right now in this country I would think anyone who cherishes it and had such a seminal responsibility in keeping it would be a little more cognizant of the serious threat to it we face at this moment. As in serious, dramatic, and urgent. He may have been on the right side of many decisions that went the other way, but that still doesn’t give his generation a pass on how badly they let things get f-ed up. Not saying it’s all their fault, but they bear some responsibility. He just seems a bit too nonplussed and smiley about the whole thing. He wouldn’t be musing about things this way if his life hung in the balance the way our Democracy does.
It's a problem that we live in a representative democracy where our representatives are so wholly disconnected from the experiences of their constituents. The majority of lawmakers are "above" us, and it's one of many factors that's eroding our "democracy," imo.
@@elysetroubadour6117 Absolutely. Well said
Im beginning not to trust it
So he's selling a book. Ok
Just listening to the opening statement.
No longer respecting the court or the government
Oliver W Holmes Jr Supreme Court Justice retired at 91 years old in the 1931. Breyer could last another ten years. Biden is only four years younger with a far more complicated stressful job.
Right. That worked out for RBG. The risk of not retiring is not worth little reward (none) of having him on the bench.
@@mindseye7909 I do appreciate that the old Hag refused to retire and made way for the Notorious ACB!
@@johnjames5459 Your appreciation is like a fart in the wind. The court appointment system is flawed and needs to be revamped to eliminate political bias and influence.
@@mindseye7909 are your little feels hurt that you can’t count on SCOTUS to enact laws you people couldn’t get through Congress any more?
@@johnjames5459 What the hell are you talking about? You fail to understand and if you could put down the pipe and pills maybe tou could save some brain cells. It is too late for you because you think Congress is functional at passimg laws. 2 + 2 = 5.
It may sound like, when it comes to COVID the issue is a question of vaccination, one of education, in science, statistics and seriousness of outcome, or convictions, however, it seems like the issue is confusion around duty of care and causation.
It looks like the consensus is, that the extent to which being vaccinated eliminates transmission, is uncertain, therefore, a civic duty argument for being vaccinated to minimise transmission, to eliminate causation as a factor with certainty, seems moot, and as a precautionary burden, not the most pragmatic.
If on the other hand, the idea of vaccination is to provide, at a lower intensity, an immune response to give a memory for the body on how to deal with a virus if it should encounter it again, then, perhaps, it is that the government ought to have a duty of care to make vaccinations available and accessible, with and through educational information, however, it sounds like it is as if the body has no memory if there is a variation of the virus, and, there are new variations of the virus each season, then, on balancing competing beneficial outcomes, it may not be of social utility to expect that COVID vaccinations ought to be available, taken or made to be taken, by all?
1. “If the democrats can do it the republicans can do it”.
2. And bringing up Harry Reid.
How funny. Neither of them bring up the filibuster but the parallels between the quote and Harry Reid is too coincidental. Dems need to keep this in mind if they are going to remove the filibuster completely and if they are thinking about increasing the size of the court.
What a bunch of BS... Thumbs down...
It's mind blowing how near sighted people in the comments are.
A Great Man!! 🇺🇸 🗽 ❤
If it’s our world now, why don’t you get out of the way?
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SHOULD BE REQUIRED LEARNING IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT!
This dinosaur needs to go around and get out.
And just clearly made a point that there needs to be limits to our Supreme Court Justices.
You mean term limits?
We desperately need term limits.
Nina Totenberg is a national treasure.
Agreed👍🏼🇺🇸💯👏🏻
Everyone should have a pocket Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And they should read it until they understand both documents as well as the context in which those precepts were created!
Ugh, he says WaRshington.
Our laws are interpreted by
dinosaurs 🦕🦖
Love this reasonable Justice 🇺🇸
Give me a break! "Go look in countries that don't have this willingness to acceptance." Where do you think we are headed? "What goes around comes around." It has already gone 'around', and you won't retire. It has already gone 'around', but we shouldn't talk about remaking the court? If it is up to me, RETIRE!
Right lol ... this geriatric guy is cracking me up when he says "what goes around comes around" while alluding to the democrats, ...while completely ignoring that the Republicans just did this when they cheated and packed the court ... what a hypocrite
Drunk on his power. This guy in his 80's too naive to see that the court has already been packed!. Keep sitting there like RBG and the ruplicans will finalize the politician of this court
Drunk on power with a fake accent and 8th grade eye rolling.
What???
Lol "long run respect for the court system"
Great interviewer and interviewee.
Change happens slowly - thinks about how trump elected 3/6 justices. Yeah, about that... I'm going to call bullshit
There are 9 justices on the supreme court.
boo hoo. GOD🗽 🇺🇸 MAGA 💪🏻💪🏾 🌟 1776 🌟
@@donavanmills1776 my son, "Maga" is about the furthest thing from "God" there ever has been ... fake Christians who Jesus himself wouldnt recognize, as their hatred has replaced HIS love
@@dantheman332 just continue to do as you're told 😆 put your mask on shut up keep your head down and keep it moving because I'm enjoying life why you Loonies stay motivated to keep yourself in Chains
@@donavanmills1776 once again, with your words... you just show how far you've fallen astray, away from Jesus, my son... Ill pray for you
Wow, Breyer is getting O L D
Fair point by Justice Breyer about remaking the courts, it's not a wise idea.
"Fair point by Justice Breyer about remaking the courts, it's not a wise idea."
No, it's an idiotic point. The Republicans will never stop trying to seize power by any means necessary. Not fighting back when they do it is surrendering.
@@TheMisterGuy yeah man im with you, i hate those stinking republicans always trying to fight against communism. what is wrong with them anyways?
breyer: creating a brand new court in a brand new baby country was a great idea.
breyer: creating a brand new court in a generally functional country is a bad idea.
you're literally surrounded by partisan hacks you old goat. the country built a secular mythology to justify the existence of the court that's on display in the basement of the court itself. maybe if you were capable of traversing a staircase you'd be able to go down there and jog your senile memory you geriatric buffoon.
Sorry... but you have to fight fire with fire sometimes ...In the moment it became glaringly obvious that many Conservatives would bend every rule to pack the court over and over, at all costs ... in that very moment it became necessary to begin discussing how to fix it
@@TheMisterGuyUnfortunately, there was no foul play involved with Trump's appointments, he got 3 fair and square. The real problem is that Ginsburg didn't retire during the Obama administration, which many urged her to do. Now these same people are begging for Breyer to retire, lest he die during a republican presidency like Ginsburg did.
He's out of his mind. 😁
No, but he appears to be naively locked in an ideological (truly independent judiciary) mindset.
Out of his mind is better than what we now have, which is too many folks acting mindlessly!
Dude got fîred
Breyer has some valid, measured points. I tend to agree more often with opinions coming from the more conservative end of the bench. But I can appreciate his reasoning process.
It's a shame the NPR interviewer has a leftist narrative and wants to frame her "questions" in the context of promoting that propaganda.
But Cathy Newman wasn't actually asking Jordan Peterson any real questions, either.
All this Breyer interview is missing in somebody from NPR saying, "So what you're saying is..."
So what you're saying is, you don't like the fact that the questions weren't asked from a right leaning stance
@@okd521 No, what I'm saying is that the "journalist" was making no effort at trying to find out something. She was applying her narrative about the world -- which was left-leaning -- and looking to use the opportunity to form a "question" in order to further the narrative. That is poor journalism. It would have been just as annoying if it'd been done by a right-leaning interviewer asking questions of Nino Scalia or Clarence Thomas.
But "journalism" has become a joke. It doesn't sell, get ratings, or (as is the case with NPR) get government grants.
And by the way, I did catch the humor in your use of, "What you're saying is..." Well done, there. It gave me the opportunity to clarify...
And here's a compilation of Cathy Newman's, "So you're saying is." And I commend Jordan Peterson for being able to stay on an emotionally even keel in dealing with her.
czcams.com/video/A99G6O721gA/video.html&ab_channel=broncojonnes
Todos esos.republicanos.ya i.jueses ya tie en la maldad.en la.frente
He is not a judge. He is a businessman.
The premise that "respect for the court" plays some significant role in how its generally viewed is limited to a narrow social class. For the nationalistic minded, taking pride of our "nation of laws" slogan might feed into that interpretation.
But, more broadly, the court is largely irrelevant to most peoples daily lives. If they think of it at all its likely in context to some social issue.
The business community pays more attention, since some of its decisions do have an impact.
But, historically, the Court has favored big companies over environment and institutions over people in many of its decisions. Both of which are positions that are demonstrably wrong, and that have eroded the habitability of the planet.
Its biases and assumptions are no better than most other human institutions, and quite frankly, it seems that, similar to the political parties and other core functions of the empire, to be in decline.
As with any "Permanent" part of human societies, The Court could be supplanted by something quite different in a period of a few weeks.
If we evolved to a reliance on systems that seek improved outcomes by their intrinsic design instead of systems built on trusting individuals to do the "right" thing. Vast improvement could be made across all of societies problems.
If we want a better future: focusing on building systems that are independent, to a degree, of who runs them, and have intrinsic properties of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number, have feedback loops correcting errors, abuse, and corruption THIS would yield outcomes far superior to the current ad hoc structures centered around a "leaders" skills, or integrity.
A man can dream, cant he?
Dream on dreamer...you'll be lucky one day...but you're not the only one. 🤠
CubeSpawn, how can you make an institution that is "independent" of who runs them? All humans are biased, are we going to trust our legal institutions to AI?
Also:
"and have intrinsic properties of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number"
This mindset promotes forgetting about the smaller number's political welfare. Political institutions should not run on utilitarianism.
You sound like you are for stamping out the rights of the individual in favor of the “greater good”. You’re advocating for a civil war, which you will lose, comrade.
@@obligatoryusername7239 systems with intrinsic properties could be something as simple a s a representative council, or as elaborate as a detailed set of procedural rules that CAN be modified, but are very laborious to modify, thereby buffering out any radical changes, but I'm more implying that we can build very stable systems that are much less susceptible to human bias - note: i did not specify how, I have ideas, but this would need a lot of testing before you'd commit your society to it, I do think existing systems are woefully inadequate as they stand.
@@johnjames5459 your assumptions are inaccurate - but I feel no compelling need to tell you more than that.
The man makes sense.
The man only makes sense if you dont remember the last year. Jesus, yes Dems brought it to simple majority, but the cards have been played by no one else besides Sen KY. R. Turtle Mc-quack. 3-weeks, purchased by the federal society for around 100 million dark money. I agree with Brier only in the facts not the culprit, dems brought it to 50 yes, but dems didn't RAM THROUGH 3 SEATS. Remove the literal political people- all of them both sides. If you can't be bipartisan at the highest level court, you don't get to make permanent decisions. If you have dark money associated with you- it should be A FELONY AT THAT LEVEL OF COURT.
Uhhhh ... no ... just .... no
The arrogance of this guy is astounding.
9 people are not enough. We need a larger Supreme Court. Let’s make it 25 judges. The reason we listen to the Supreme Court is because of the Presidency. We know that the President will enforce the court’s orders. If the President ever stops doing that, then the Court is meaningless.
why stop at 25 why not 100 or even a thousand?
Where did the limit on the size of the House of Representatives come from?
Things that make you go "hmmmm".
Then when a Republican president comes in again will make it a hundred. Then when a Democrat comes in we'll make it $150. No thank you nine is good enough. If the American people are worried about Republicans making supreme Court justices then they will not vote for a Republican. Most Americans knew that there would be at least one supreme Court Justice that Trump's office would have to nominate yet they still elected him. That's how democracy works in a Republic.
@@stevepettibone5794 He didn't win the popular vote.
@@elysetroubadour6117 neither did Abraham Lincoln.
If Repugs insist on playing games to be overrepresented on the Court, eventually we'll be faced with the necessity of either adding Justices, or subtracting inJustices.
"At times there have been as few as six Justices, while the current number is , with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices; this has been in place since 1869." When Justice Anthony Kennedy retired, President Obama wanted to appoint Garland (our current Attorney), but the Democrats didn't have a majority in the Senate to affirm the process. Was the move on part of the Republicans shady? Sure. Did it ignore the wishes of half the country? Yes. Previously, has this part of the process been far less political, judges being confirmed in a nonpartisan fashion? Yes. Would the Democrats have done the same thing if the roles were reversed? Absolutely. Was it unconstitutional? NO. During President Trump's term, the Democrats STILL didn't have a majority majority in the Senate, the Republicans did, so Trump had the ability to appoint Gorsuch in place of Kennedy, Kavanaugh in place of Scalia, and Barret in place of RBG. This happened because the Republicans HAD THE MAJORITY. Did Trump do us all a disservice by politicizing this process, giving specifics as to "why" he wanted Barret, for example? Absolutely. Were Trump's Justices confirmed unconstitutionally? No. The process is explained in the Constitution. Feathers were ruffled, and this impacts us to this day, that Obama was not able to have Garland confirmed. But the Democrats didn't have the majority. If Breyer retires, the Democrats DO have the majority, and will be able to confirm a new Justice. THE MAJORITY is the essence of it all right now. The MAJORITY is decided at the ballot box. That is what it comes down to. If you look at many bills that have made it to President Biden's desk lately, for him to sign, got there because the Democrats currently hold the majority, and this is not unlike the ability to appoint a judge when one of the nine pass away OR retires, as we may see with Breyer. What's happened with the perception of the court, imo, half of the country isn't liking this process anymore and wants Breyer to retire or Biden to add Justices to outweigh the conservative judges because half of the country doesn't like the decisions (despite the fact that, lately, the highest court in the land didn't reverse Obamacare and didn't hear 2020 election disputes). Haven't we always had people who didn't like the decisions, like half the country? Yes. The difference between now and 20 years ago, people respected the ruling of the highest court in the land. It's within congress's constitutional power to add judges, but this could backfire, you know? The more we see the court politicized, and the less we trust their decisions and the less we trust when and when NOT they decide to hear a case, the more we blur the lines between the three branches of government. They wear black robes -- not MAGA hats or face masks -- because they INTERPRET the law, what's constitutional and what is not. THEY DON'T MAKE THE LAW. We don't always like their decision, but to add so-called "liberal-leaning" judges so decisions could more likely favor the Biden agenda, is not what the court is for. Such a move -- if ANY party did this, pack the court -- it appears to the country that we now have legislators in robes. That is the VERY THING they are not supposed to be. If the democratic party "adds" judges because they can, that means the republican party can add judges, too. Do we want this mess? It's constitutional, yes, but it's constitutional for BOTH parties. "The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice. All Justices are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and hold their offices under life tenure. Since Justices do not have to run or campaign for re-election, they are thought to be insulated from political pressure when deciding cases. Justices may remain in office until they resign, pass away, or are impeached and convicted by Congress."
Abortion Wars continue
Man the views are low on NPR videos... Wonder why?
No ay.respeto.abucibos.juaticia
Liberals will soon wish for "the old days". People have had enough.
We all want the same thing, the leaders of this country are getting working class people to fight each other when we should eat the rich!
Yes, they probably wish for the days when people did not believe alternate facts, refused to wear a mask for country and thy neighbor, did not have a foreign flag (confederate) in our capitol, did not have a President trying to undermine an election by saying it was rigged...
I have little respect for this group . They (the old smug
"What goes around comes around". Maybe Breyer should have had that discussion with McConnell.
Supreme justices should only have a maximum term of 10 years. The fact that some of these justices were appointed years before most voters today were even able to talk is stupid by it’s own right. Stagnant offices become stagnant water. A person in power will wish to remain in power until stopped by an external force, often being “death by old age” or some other external force that makes them retire.
Amend the Constitution… their terms are Constitutionally defined.
Thats a great idea as long as the 10 year deal for senators is included.we cannot fix our corrupt system with only the Supreme Court with 10 year limits.
What an egoist. God I hope he retires and fast!
We need discussion and his opinion is important. I don't agree with his view, I see it as wishful thinking but I respect his learned perspective. Listening is exactly what is missing now on the current Supreme Court.
The solution to fixing the court is to have nominees provided by a non-partisan panel with a goal to have the court be neutral in respect to the make up for the country. As the country becomes more liberal or conservative the court should slowly move that direction to be slightly more central than the make-up of the country.
Non-partisan panels set up by conservatives are still conservative. In 2015, Ohio voters passed anti-gerrymandering laws. Yesterday, Ohio presented it's new "anti-gerrymandered" congressional district maps that would award Republicans over 67% of seats in both the house and senate, even though Republicans typically win only 55% of the vote. Republicans just don't know what fair and honest mean anymore.
@@wdmc2012 so the answer is to fix how you create the panel and make sure you actually set up a non-partisan panel.
A non-partisan panel that is partisan is by definition not meeting the intent of 'non-partisan' so I think a more accurate statement would be something like 'it is hard to set up a non-partisan panel.'. Followed by your example.
Also, do you have a better solution to a anti-partisan panel to fix the Supreme Court? One that doesn't create a political football where it goes back and forth or the minority feels they have no say?
@@En-Jon-eer Non-partisan panels are a rarity. Non-partisan standards are possible. We can measure gerrymandering with the idea of wasted votes and the efficiency gap. This method made news a few years ago because it was used to challenge gerrymandering in Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court decided "not my business," gerrymandering is a state problem. If we required district maps to meet a certain efficiency, Republicans couldn't hide behind the childish defense of, "We didn't draw maps to be biased, they just ended up that way..."
For Supreme Court justices, we used to have achieve non-partisanship by requiring 60 senate votes to appoint a judge. This was eliminated for most federal judges by Harry Reid, then for Supreme Court judges by Mitch McConnell, and you can't really put the toothpaste back in the tube. While there are several options reducing the politics of selecting s.c. judges, nearly all of them run into the problem of the Constitution, which states s.c. judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, and they serve for life (or "during good Behaviour".) Without a constitutional amendment, the S.C. is going to become more and more political.
Discard the lifetime appointment. Now that it is clearly evident that the bench has established itself a political office that no longer is unbiased in it's interpretation of the Constitution, the time has come to make it an elected position of nation wide scope. I would prefer a straight national popular vote for each vacancy.
Further, the study of law and political science must academically include a persistent emphasis, that any system, institution, or government body, no matter how well conceived or initially implemented, is inherently vulnerable and requires vigilant robust measures to counter it's inevitable contamination by dogged anti Democracy political ideology.
I leave it to the will of the majority to come up with a specific consensus to formulate counter measures to mitigate a relentless, FOX inspired threat to our Democracy, because right now, our nation is being imposed upon by a violent, ill informed, radicalized minority that has a built in support system comprised of trusted governmental and corporate positions who blatantly act as enablers for anti Democracy/anti government sedition. The public trust in our government institutions (already vaporized for Republican partisans by decades of FOX and NPS propaganda) will be severely damaged for the rest of Americans if government is perceived as haplessly weak in countering these FOX inspired, anti Democracy/ anti government forces. Their agenda is obvious, well conceived, and straight out of the fascist playbook. It is disturbing to me that NPS is a part of this traitorous effort.
Yes and however, true meaningful change comes from acting out against out of touch imperialists such as these two. At this point talk is cheap. We must rise up no matter who sits upon the thrones of power in this nation because it is the power that causes such ridiculous conformation that we have today without any ability to dissent in any meaningful way. Thus Action in the streets is the only viable solution to today's threats against the lower and middle income earners, from the upper income brackets who control most of the wealth and now power through propaganda built on money. And face it, you both have a certain kind of power and wealth that gives you the ability to artificially spread your "intellect" across markets. Other wise Mr. Breyer would not be publishing a book and you most certainly would not be allowed to have this interview. The mistakes being made here are various. But particularly ignore the fact, among others of course, that they both may be considered "Left" - Which they are arguably not. Also that the political left has gone right and still today the people below their "class" of existence simply do not matter. Right, left, they care not as long as we listen to them and don't cause trouble.
This interview was predetermined and they both have become conformists. What a sad moment. Public radio and public TV have become so war mongering and sensationalist that even the real left and progressives and dare I say the center have no where to go to see truth and fact be represented. Most people including the right, are not in the realm of these two. Not because of intellect, but from lack of reason in education of the masses, mass indoctrination in the way of war, promoting the rich as somehow being people to look up to. And general propaganda running rampant in our mass media universally.
I think it is time for a little fiddling with the number of juCourt. In the Supreme Court....but I am not a lawyer. I am a citizen living through a horrible insurgency! Some of the worst Suoreme Court decisions were meant to continue the damage to the rights of most Americans-Native Americans, Asians, African Americans and women...so I humbly disagree.. I do want to respect the Supreme Court in the old fashioned way. "What goes around, comes around is an African American saying, and 400 years is a good time for a cycle change...his view is admirable, but colored by the eurocentric experience of living in America! Justice Breyer you set the standard for where we should be. I think we still may get there if we have a balanced court.
No! What sits around comes around!
That means you Beyer!
You need to go!
Justice Breyer, you are the future we need to aspire to become!
Republicans did so more judges should bring the court back to law. The court lost respect by not opposing voter suppression or Texas Abortion. This is failure
I think it's a great idea to change the Supreme Court. The current justices only wait for an issue to be brought to them before they make a decision. That waiting will cost them. If they're replaced with democrats, they'll be a lot more engaging to events around them. We just might get something done. Also, look how old that fellow is, do we really expect him to accept something new over what he's studied his while life to know? Bring in the new, younger, and exciting generation and revive this broken Court system!
I do believe that even the older court justices have a lot to add to current issues. The problem is not their age, the problem is their willingness to look at both sides fairly and then decide an issue based on the 21st century world we now live in. Kavanaugh is young but his dark character and willingness to be bought negates any good he will ever do, not to mention do we really want a SCJ who is a proven liar and most probably a sexist? Do we…really?
There is a law Above the Law of man
I assume you are referring to some religious law? If there is such a thing you need to demonstrate that such law exists with evidence and prove we should follow it before we actually do.
I'd also be curious, if your religious law said that you should kill your first born son or your family should be slaves to another in perpetuity, would you still say it is right and follow it? Why? Because if you don`t your god or gods will torture you? So might makes right then? Interesting viewpoint.
@@En-Jon-eer if there is no absolute moral law and everything is relative we are all just pond scum evolved to a higher order it doesn't matter If Your Mother Teresa II or Hitler II good luck you're going to need it
@@kengreene5212 first of all no god has come down and provided a law. We only have people saying what they think a god said without proof that the god even exists. I would argue there is therefore no evidence of a higher law than what we make ourselves.
Second, I believe secular humanism is superior to any religious based law. I'd be curious to know how you think a religious law would be better (assuming you think so). I'm curious on what you even mean by 'good luck if you are Hitler II or mother Thresa II' or the 'evolved pond scum' comment I really don't understand what you are implying.
Lastly, I noticed you completely avoided answering my question if it is moral just because might makes right. I'd appreciate an answer on that, if you have one you'd stand behind.
@@En-Jon-eer I can tell by your comments have you definitely have not studied the evidence and truly looked for truth
@@kengreene5212 What truth? Are you going to be the first person to have proof for a god? Or are you just going to hide behind untrue accusations of what I've done to protect your fragile ego and imaginary world view?
cant wait! texas is only the beginning
We Won't Back Down We Won't Give In We Won't Give Up We Won't Bend I Stand For The Flag And Kneel For The Cross America Will Stand At Any Cost! GOD🗽 🇺🇸 MAGA 💪🏻💪🏾 🌟 1776 🌟
Calm down 🤪
@@mikekoch4001 haha ... this guy definitely is no 'christian' .... ol' Lucifer loves to impersonate his brother
National Propoganda Radio. NPR
This judge has no ethics. We're fighting to get CONSTITUTIONALIST on the bench and he wants to make it about politics and sides.
GET SOME ETHICS, STEPHEN, you've sold out.
Who's we? And define what you mean by constitutionalist. That sounds like something someone who doesn't believe the constitution needs to be interpreted to understand its intent in modern society (which it can't because the founding fathers weren't fortune tellers) would say.
@@En-Jon-eer whose interpretation? take for example the 2nd amendment, same purpose for it exists today that did when it was written madison. you sound like a commie wearing a progressive disguise.
@@anti-them4383 sounds like you have a baked in view of what "commie" means and want to push me into that box. I have my own independent views on each issue and wouldn't consider myself communist. But since you want to just label people you might be too simple minded to understand that nuance.
The 2nd amendment (assuming it was created to keep the government from becoming tyrannical) makes no sense today. At the time of the constitution guns could shot about 6 shots per minute - if you were very well trained - and weren't very accurate (in comparison to today's standards). Additionally, the government generally only had men with the same guns. Now the army has tanks, attack helicopters, gas etc. You can't seriously want to arm evey lunatic with the same level of arms as our modern army, can you? Tell me you aren't that naive.
@@anti-them4383 no response to my response? Guess you never considered it further than `me like gun. me fight to keep gun. Gun protect me from reptile people in government` because I believe you are that simple minded and crazy.
@@En-Jon-eer sorry i didnt see it, ill respond to both.
Liz Cheney 24
If you’re young and listing to these geriatrics discussing American issues from a bygone era, it should strike you odd that this isn’t an history channel interview but rather old people who won’t let go of power who continue their outdated struggles from decades ago.
Notice how both the interviewer and the justice should be well retired in their flower gardens enjoying Arnold Palmers. Instead they are holding on to precious societal roles that could be invigorated by young blood and dynamic mindsets. In 20 years their skeletons will still have lipstick and nice clothes as they continue the power grab while dominating American politics. Retire!!!
You think Bernie Sanders should retire too? Innovators come in all ages!
@@mattrussillo4587 Hi Matt, I feel you, and yes sadly I think he should step down as well and do what all old people have done for ages, guide by giving advice to a new generation of leaders like AOC. I mean the Supreme Court is a great example. When Ruth died because she was super old and attached to her egoistic power role it hurt our country… she should have voluntarily retired with honor.
Every once in awhile the communist npr stumbles onto the mind frame of liberty.
I hope you never retire! your too important for this nation.
Steven Breyer now start telling the truth because what you say left the building long ago and you know it, but your statement's were known lies.