Stephen sits down with one of the top nine Supreme Court Justices to talk about his new book, "The Court And The World: American Law And The New Global Realities."
As a conservative Republican hell yes. He should’ve gotten an episode. The justices of our highest court are some of the best people in our country. They put political parties aside and do a great job. I may disagree with this man on many things, but I respect him a hell of a lot more than Democrats on the hill
I enjoyed the interview, but it wasn't necessary to make a joke every two minutes. Not a terrible problem, but I think Colbert needs to feel more comfortable occasionally doing an interview where he doesn't feel the need to be "funny." Craig Ferguson was good at that. As goofy as he could be, he also knew how to get serious from time to time, and the audience welcomed it. Colbert is extremely intelligent, and I think he'll eventually feel more comfortable with that as well.
+dooner I noticed that Charlie Rose tends to offer his own thoughts while his interviewee is still talking. He also doesn't want to scare off any future interviews with people who don't want to be confronted. Just IMHO...
I notice that his interruptions led to new questions. Looks to me like they didn't have enough time, hence the interruptions. I wish they gave Breyer more interview time though.
+dooner because they only allotted him small amount of airtime in the show so he had to keep the conversation moving.. but yeah they shouldve given him more time it ended pretty abruptly
I came here for that very reason! Someone in the comments section of a video featuring Mister Rogers drew that same comparison and I came to see how similar they might be. I would agree. They both have patience, grace, intelligence, and a particular calming way of speaking.
I mean, what a fantastic interview with some really thought provoking interview. This is becoming a typical and common remark, but I doubt you would ever see this type of interview on any other late night show.
+calebwilford What exactly did you find thought provoking about this interview? The lame excuse the judge gave us about why there are no cameras allowed? Or that colbert didn't ask any interesting questions, that would have been of puplic interest? He didn't even mention one of the numerous controversial rulings or the fact, that some of the judges clearly keep ruling in favour of the wealthy. The only thought provoking thing about this interview was why colbert didn't talk about any of these subjects. PS: I like Colbert, but this was really disappointing.
+Wyatt Boyd It's best that Breyer and the other liberal justices, not speak about Citizens United. If they do, they may be required to recuse themselves if a case is in front of them to reverse Citizens United. I just hope that day comes sooner than later. But we MUST get a Democrat in the White House and hope he/she is able to replace any of those 5 conservatives that made that pernicious ruling. Only way it will happen.
The justices ware black robes because there former Hogwarts students and only wizards can get jobs at the Supreme Court , thats why there's no camera aloud , the spells must not be made public. #WIZARDS
+Mr. Gabe That's pure applesauce. Sure, he might engage in a little jiggery-pokery here and there, but Scalia never lets himself descend into an angry argle-bargle.
+Pinkamena Pie Woah there, looks like you've made the all too common mistake that you bronies make: assuming that anyone gives half a fuck about anything you say, or that anyone online or otherwise (not that you even interact with anyone outside the internet) takes anything you say seriously. Just a heads up dude
Pinkamena Pie People do not be fooled but Pinkamena Pie's comment today means so much more than it does. In fact, it sets dangers precedent. If someone can say such things online I ask, what's next? Polygamy? Bigamy? Bestiality? Even though they have nothing to do with the subject, I warn people of today's decision. I dissent.
Boogeyman7 Dude chill out. He was making fun of Scalia. That's some of the recent bullshit rhetoric that Scalia used in his dissents this summer. Using words like "applesauce" to describes Roberts's and Kennedy's opinions. He was agreeing with me.
Let charlie rose be = x Let Stephen Colbert be = y According to your statement y = x + y > y-y = x > 0 = x Thus, y=y, so there is no Charlie Rose in Stephen Colbert, Stephen Colbert is Stephen Colbert. P.S. Sorry for being a nerd mate, but i have a maths exam, couldn't help relating it here. 😊 Was just kidding.
Prabhjot Singh Gambhir His statement does not imply that there is a union between Colbert's character and Charlie rose. Therefore there is no y= x+y. His statement better interprets as a intersection between the character of Colbert and Charlie Rose. Thus, an intersection in mathematics can be interpreted as simple multiplications. Simplifying it to the algebraic terms in which you started it would be: y'= (y)(x).
+Charlemagne Marc Not really the place for it. This isn't Colbert Report. He has a different audience to appeal to, and while he is bringing on politicians and government officials, I imagine they want to keep it somewhat neutral to the audience they are bringing in.
+Charlemagne Marc, Well, we can all take a good guess on what Breyer thinks of it (he dissented). And Justices have to be careful what they say when speaking outside the courtroom as it can violate certain outlined ethics and they may have to recuse themselves from a future case. It's best for Breyer, and the other liberal justices, to not talk about Citizens United so when the day comes that they have a chance to reverse it none of them will have to recuse themselves.
You get a very rare opportunity to interview a Supreme Court justice and you a.) Forget to ask about Citizens United and b.) Constantly interrupt him with sophomoric jokes and C.) Give him only 7 minutes of airtime. Opportunity wasted, Mr. Colbert.
I really like Colbert but this interview was super underwhelming. It's as if he was going out of his way to dumb things down. Glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the childish interruptions.
+MrAntiBuffoonery if you think that Colbert is the one who insisted on a softball, then you do not understand how network tv works nor do network tv execs understand that they're slowly making themselves irrelevant.
+hutch I think he actually did it briliantly, consider how little time they had. This mans thoughts about law could be found in his book. But by making jokes, and have a little bit of dumbed down, light hearted discussion, made this man give some answears that really showed his personality. Like when he talks about what his father said to him as young, or how he sometimes asks himself if he is right for the job. That shows true humanity, that could easily dissappear if they talked only about his proffession. So for me it was something speciall to see this man smile, and tell personal stuff, instead of him talking about the justice system. Law is always going to be subject, and is very far from flawless. It is great to see experienced men like him recognize that, and talks about their difficulties dealing with that on a personal level, while also getting such huge respect from an audience. I liked this. :D
So awesome to have a Supreme Court Justice on a Late Night Show, had it ever been done before? In any case, to listen to a Breyer speak candidly on a show like this was really interesting. Thank you!
I love Stephens format with The Late Show thus far. We get the familiar Colbert Report for the news segments, then we get the real him during the interviews. Damn good format, damn good interview style. The thing I love about the interviews so far is that there is no phony bullshit. No stupid showbiz questions, no phony laughs, Stephen actually lets his guests talk, no pointless joke interruptions to make the audience laugh just because nobody has laughed in "this" many seconds...Just truly sincere interviewing with a few jokes thrown in. I love it :) ...if only it were longer :( Thank you Stephen Colbert! Thanks to you *and* your staff for putting on a great show!...so far. Dont abuse your monkey hand, Colbert...
very well spoken! I've been really enjoying the good interviews on colbert's new show so far. definately more depth than most of what's on TV right now.
I enjoyed the interview, but it wasn't necessary to make a joke every two minutes. Not a terrible problem, but I think Colbert needs to feel more comfortable occasionally doing an interview where he doesn't feel the need to be "funny." Craig Ferguson was good at that. As goofy as he could be, he also knew how to get serious from time to time, and the audience welcomed it. Colbert is extremely intelligent, and I think he'll eventually feel more comfortable with that as well.
I've just finished a most exciting listen-to featuring Mr. Justice Stephen Breyer. He held my attention all the way, not only for the masterful content but his magnificent delivery, worthy of the Old Vic. (I don't have my glasses on, but I think I see C-Span, Book TV.) Some years ago, I had the pleasant pleasure of listening to Mr. Justice Arthur Goldberg and had the audacity to question him as to what he abdicated a seat on the SCOTUS to take up the thankless, dreadful job, of US Ambassador to the UN, robbing the American people of a brilliant jurist. I must say that between the two justices, Mr. Justice Breyer was the more dynamic in terms of presentation!
Let's take a moment to appreciate the band for the incredible and unique music the are playing at this show, It's different and not like the usual boring music every other late show plays, Bravo
Simon Phoenix really wasn’t debunked. He had a senate hearing where nothing happened. Which is true of most senate hearings, because the senators suck at questioning witnesses. He wasn’t proven guilty, but he wasn’t vindicated either.
Amazing interview and amazing answers for questions. I think that's the fundamental difference between someone that constantly has to campaign and give the country a positive image and someone that was selected based entirely on their expertise by people who are familiar with the qualities necessary for the position. They don't have to deflect the tough questions or stipulate that everything is a softball. It's good to know what some element of the government, regardless of their actual decisions, do what is necessary in a professional and reasonable way without a bunch of partisan bickering, bags of money behind closed doors, and ruthless attacks with a varying levels of truth.
I thought this was a disappointing interview. Justice Breyer played second fiddle to actress Emily Blunt, he was never asked about profoundly important recent decisions like Citizens United, and same-sex marriage, he never got to speak about his book which examines the evolution of law in the increasingly interconnected 21st century. What shame Colbert didn't do more with this rare opportunity.
+Sarfaraz Hussein Merchant It's because it is highly considered inappropriate for members of SCOTUS to discuss cases in the public. It was likely a prerequisite for J. Breyer coming on the show.
@106908592444175346338 That's entirely possible. However, he deals with controversial issues and decisions in his new book. A book he is promoting. They have very different social energies: Breyer is quite slow and methodic; Colbert brash and witty, which somewhat clashed, quite awkward at points. I'll concede I could be wrong. That's just my take.
+Sarfaraz Hussein Merchant Well there can't help but be a clash in style. Colbert lives in the talk show format of which gives you only 7 minutes to get as much as you can, and you need to be direct and witty to milk it. Breyer comes from the Supreme Court, where arguments go all day, and a single sigh can last 7 minutes. I'm sure the idea of talking Supreme Court Law in 7 minute segments would have horrified Breyer. And likely, we would have all known the answer for Citizens United, it would have been something like "it does not represent the views of the justices on campaign finance, they just have to interpret the law as it is written. When the law does not mention a situation directly, it is up to justice to glean from it's language how it should be applied in an area that may not have been considered when it was written. Should justices stick to language, historical intent, or context when these things conflict, should they be read narrowly or broadly, etc? These are the points of debate". And that's half the interview gone there, just another long description of their job description, which is what they give always because they are sick of people seeing them as politicians advocating for the causes they believe in. They are interpreters. So Colbert tied to avoid this tedious path by going for a more human intro to a Supreme Court Justice.
Do you not know how the SCOTUS acts? Rarely if ever does a SCOTUS justice reiterate an opinion on a case publically unless its in an academic setting. They write their opinions and judgements for a reason. Go read them.
They do its just rare for it to not be an academic setting. Justices give academic speechs and panels somewhat frequently tbh But in this kind of forum its definitely a rare occurrence.
+Nqina Dlamini There is a very long moderated conversation between Breyer and Scalia moderated by ACS and the Federalist Society on CZcams. Look it up.
An analogy of why we can't view the Supreme Court on TV: Imagine not knowing anything about how medicine is treated and you walk into a room of doctors performing heart surgery. What would your reaction be? In this day and age "distortion" of the media is common and I wouldn't be surprise if #barbaricdoctors would trend on twitter.
Wish it could have been longer. Great to see Colbert not have to interview in character because he can get straight to the questions directly without (most of) the sarcasm.
that is a serious man. i really liked him. So professional and impressive. I agree with the other comments. I want to hear more about what he has to say.
for the first time ever im a fan of this show. Stephen Colbert is the best late night host. im so glad he's taking over. not fake as fuck like Jimmy Fallon!
This is why I'm happy there's no cameras in the supreme four. You can tell this guy is not a politician, he's used to sitting quietly and trying to understand something without trying to impress and audience with soundbites and distort his goals with crowd-pleasing BS. You just have to look at him and Sotomayor speak vs. when Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton when they speak to see that he still has life in his eyes, and the pleasure has not yet been beat out of speaking and reasoning for him.
*For you friend* [that go to law school]. For you [Attorney, Lawyer, Judge]. And for you [yes, you that seems to always want to challenge the law]. Please, pay special attention to minute 3:10-5:25.
his final comments about professionalism, no insults, no voices raised is so simple, yet so profound.
take note, presidential candidates
+moiraine_damodred "You're yelling at me right now" was something of a counter point.
+Stefan Kaitschick more of a joke, I thought. Breyer wasn't really yelling.
+moiraine_damodred take notes.....Congress
+moiraine_damodred Fits Ben Carson to a T!
Shep Twelve true but I almost feel like he's about to fall asleep while talking lmao
Am I the only one who thinks Breyer deserved more than a seven minutes segment?
@Carl Yelland Ok, homophobe
@Carl Yelland Still lawful according to the Constitution which gives the Supreme Court the right to decide this case in the favor of the majority.
As a conservative Republican hell yes. He should’ve gotten an episode. The justices of our highest court are some of the best people in our country. They put political parties aside and do a great job. I may disagree with this man on many things, but I respect him a hell of a lot more than Democrats on the hill
Deserved less.
@Carl Yelland The opinion was penned by a conservative justice lol.
The man talks with such a calm and intelligent diction its beautiful.
Almost like Mr Rogers..lol
I wish the interview was longer. I could see that he had a lot more to say.
+Joshua Reyes Yeah, makes you wish you could hear more of his thoughts, like i dunno in a book? too bad nothing like that exists.
+ATMOSK1234 it was not really just about his thought but also thanks to the very good question that Colbert ask. I doubt Colbert help for the book.
+Joshua Reyes Unfortunately they only have a limited time.
+Joshua Reyes Keep us wanting more :p
+Ipostle Breyer's already married, sadly
He's just how I imagined a US Supreme Court Judge to be. Stoic, confident, extremely smart.
and in kavenaughs case, a woman abuser.
what makes him so smart?
@awd awion so easily deceived
awd awion I mean, after someone paid his debt and his mortgages, I believe he was probably forced in by Russians or the GOP.
Carl Yelland what exactly do you know about the law?
I want this man to read me bedtime stories and tell me everything will be ok
+hamsterpoop whaaaat. you crazy lol
Now that Trump is president, nothing will be.
OK I've volunteered
Now, more than ever 😭😭😭
I enjoyed the interview, but it wasn't necessary to make a joke every two minutes. Not a terrible problem, but I think Colbert needs to feel more comfortable occasionally doing an interview where he doesn't feel the need to be "funny." Craig Ferguson was good at that. As goofy as he could be, he also knew how to get serious from time to time, and the audience welcomed it. Colbert is extremely intelligent, and I think he'll eventually feel more comfortable with that as well.
Justice Stephen Breyer is humble and the right kind of temperament for the Supreme Court. He's what it's all about!
Wish the interview was longer. Its people like Mr. Breyer what makes America great...
We need to pay more attention to people like this. Unfortunately we don't because they are not as entertaining to most people.
Fabsmaster5 jn
Also the supreme court not meant to be glamorized thus these kinds of spotlight interviews are pretty rare outside of an academic setting.
Stephen interrupted him quite a lot in an effort to make the interview funny but it became annoying
+dooner I noticed that Charlie Rose tends to offer his own thoughts while his interviewee is still talking. He also doesn't want to scare off any future interviews with people who don't want to be confronted. Just IMHO...
I notice that his interruptions led to new questions. Looks to me like they didn't have enough time, hence the interruptions. I wish they gave Breyer more interview time though.
He replaced Letterman.
+dooner because they only allotted him small amount of airtime in the show so he had to keep the conversation moving.. but yeah they shouldve given him more time it ended pretty abruptly
+billmaher4tw yeah - I miss the Comedy central days now - The Bruce Jenner Show is best for comedy and he doesn't need a band thats *******
This man is classy. And Colbert is the fucking KING.
I would love to watch an hour long interview with Breyer.
All serious issues aside, I really enjoyed that Justice Breyer has a speaking cadence and tone that is very reminiscent of Mr. Rogers.
I came here for that very reason! Someone in the comments section of a video featuring Mister Rogers drew that same comparison and I came to see how similar they might be. I would agree. They both have patience, grace, intelligence, and a particular calming way of speaking.
His questions in oral argument sound like he is talking to children and not lawyers.
I feel very good about this man. Definitely deserves his spot
I mean, what a fantastic interview with some really thought provoking interview. This is becoming a typical and common remark, but I doubt you would ever see this type of interview on any other late night show.
so true
+calebwilford Meanwhile Fallon is talking into a "mirror" with Donald Trump...
+calebwilford You mean karaoke with Ariana Grande isnt thought provoking?
+calebwilford
What exactly did you find thought provoking about this interview? The lame excuse the judge gave us about why there are no cameras allowed? Or that colbert didn't ask any interesting questions, that would have been of puplic interest? He didn't even mention one of the numerous controversial rulings or the fact, that some of the judges clearly keep ruling in favour of the wealthy.
The only thought provoking thing about this interview was why colbert didn't talk about any of these subjects.
PS: I like Colbert, but this was really disappointing.
stau ffap when you compare this with what Fallon does, it's thought provoking
He has a very calming presence
..this openness, self confidence felt in each and every individual..that's the success..
Stephen should have brought up Citizens United, which is shaping the 2016 election
+Wyatt Boyd that conversation would have been long
+Wyatt Boyd agreed, but for the record, Bryer's against it
+Wyatt Boyd It's best that Breyer and the other liberal justices, not speak about Citizens United. If they do, they may be required to recuse themselves if a case is in front of them to reverse Citizens United.
I just hope that day comes sooner than later. But we MUST get a Democrat in the White House and hope he/she is able to replace any of those 5 conservatives that made that pernicious ruling. Only way it will happen.
Mr. Gabe none of the justices is "required" to recuse themselves. They can pretty much do whatever they want
The justices ware black robes because there former Hogwarts students and only wizards can get jobs at the Supreme Court , thats why there's no camera aloud , the spells must not be made public. #WIZARDS
+mr.D but I have to side with the Malfoy's over the potters , I'm a Slytherin ( potter more.com )
+mr.D You're a hairy wizard
+Jarrett Walton i choose to accept this explanation, thank you sir
+Jarrett Walton this is my new head cannon. thanks!
Where did you learn to grammar?
He may not say anything insulting, but Justice Scalia sure does throw punches in his dissents
+Mr. Gabe That's pure applesauce. Sure, he might engage in a little jiggery-pokery here and there, but Scalia never lets himself descend into an angry argle-bargle.
+Pinkamena Pie Woah there, looks like you've made the all too common mistake that you bronies make: assuming that anyone gives half a fuck about anything you say, or that anyone online or otherwise (not that you even interact with anyone outside the internet) takes anything you say seriously. Just a heads up dude
+Pinkamena Pie He occasionally gets a little crickety crackety though.
Pinkamena Pie
People do not be fooled but Pinkamena Pie's comment today means so much more than it does. In fact, it sets dangers precedent. If someone can say such things online I ask, what's next? Polygamy? Bigamy? Bestiality? Even though they have nothing to do with the subject, I warn people of today's decision. I dissent.
Boogeyman7
Dude chill out. He was making fun of Scalia. That's some of the recent bullshit rhetoric that Scalia used in his dissents this summer. Using words like "applesauce" to describes Roberts's and Kennedy's opinions. He was agreeing with me.
Wish Colbert had shown the same amount of respect for this incredible man as he did Vice President Biden.
Stephen Colbert is like a mixture of Charlie Rose and Stephen Colbert.
+fidorover Just make sure you put "..." around that second Stephen Colbert.
Let charlie rose be = x
Let Stephen Colbert be = y
According to your statement
y = x + y
> y-y = x
> 0 = x
Thus, y=y, so there is no Charlie Rose in Stephen Colbert, Stephen Colbert is Stephen Colbert.
P.S. Sorry for being a nerd mate, but i have a maths exam, couldn't help relating it here. 😊 Was just kidding.
Prabhjot Singh Gambhir His statement does not imply that there is a union between Colbert's character and Charlie rose. Therefore there is no y= x+y. His statement better interprets as a intersection between the character of Colbert and Charlie Rose. Thus, an intersection in mathematics can be interpreted as simple multiplications. Simplifying it to the algebraic terms in which you started it would be: y'= (y)(x).
+fidorover you and your responders all win and win big
This did not age well
disappointed Colbert didn't ask about Citizen United
+Joe bingo
+Charlemagne Marc Not really the place for it. This isn't Colbert Report. He has a different audience to appeal to, and while he is bringing on politicians and government officials, I imagine they want to keep it somewhat neutral to the audience they are bringing in.
+Charlemagne Marc, Well, we can all take a good guess on what Breyer thinks of it (he dissented). And Justices have to be careful what they say when speaking outside the courtroom as it can violate certain outlined ethics and they may have to recuse themselves from a future case. It's best for Breyer, and the other liberal justices, to not talk about Citizens United so when the day comes that they have a chance to reverse it none of them will have to recuse themselves.
+Mr. Gabe Most justices seem to take great care what they say on the public stage, outside the courtroom. Then there's Scalia...
Glenn Williams
Because he is shameless... yes I know it's pure applesauce that I say that... but my first comment was just jiggery-pokey anyways :-)
Never seen such a calmness and confidence in human during an interview....
You get a very rare opportunity to interview a Supreme Court justice and you a.) Forget to ask about Citizens United and b.) Constantly interrupt him with sophomoric jokes and C.) Give him only 7 minutes of airtime. Opportunity wasted, Mr. Colbert.
I really like Colbert but this interview was super underwhelming. It's as if he was going out of his way to dumb things down. Glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the childish interruptions.
+MrAntiBuffoonery if you think that Colbert is the one who insisted on a softball, then you do not understand how network tv works nor do network tv execs understand that they're slowly making themselves irrelevant.
+hutch I think he actually did it briliantly, consider how little time they had. This mans thoughts about law could be found in his book. But by making jokes, and have a little bit of dumbed down, light hearted discussion, made this man give some answears that really showed his personality. Like when he talks about what his father said to him as young, or how he sometimes asks himself if he is right for the job. That shows true humanity, that could easily dissappear if they talked only about his proffession. So for me it was something speciall to see this man smile, and tell personal stuff, instead of him talking about the justice system. Law is always going to be subject, and is very far from flawless. It is great to see experienced men like him recognize that, and talks about their difficulties dealing with that on a personal level, while also getting such huge respect from an audience. I liked this. :D
Damn I expected everyone in this chain or replies to start deepthroating Connan O’brian
That was a great question asked by Colbert about no camera's in the courtroom, and a great answer about why we don't.
Dude this show is teaching me and entertaining me more than I could possibly hope. You gotta get the full episodes up on here!
So awesome to have a Supreme Court Justice on a Late Night Show, had it ever been done before? In any case, to listen to a Breyer speak candidly on a show like this was really interesting. Thank you!
I have tremendous respect for both these men
There are other great, longer interviews of Justice Breyer. Just utube him. He's truly been a special gift
Wow, a talk show host that actually lets his guest speak!
I love Stephens format with The Late Show thus far. We get the familiar Colbert Report for the news segments, then we get the real him during the interviews. Damn good format, damn good interview style.
The thing I love about the interviews so far is that there is no phony bullshit. No stupid showbiz questions, no phony laughs, Stephen actually lets his guests talk, no pointless joke interruptions to make the audience laugh just because nobody has laughed in "this" many seconds...Just truly sincere interviewing with a few jokes thrown in. I love it :) ...if only it were longer :(
Thank you Stephen Colbert! Thanks to you *and* your staff for putting on a great show!...so far. Dont abuse your monkey hand, Colbert...
very well spoken! I've been really enjoying the good interviews on colbert's new show so far. definately more depth than most of what's on TV right now.
What an amazing man Breyer is! Astounding!
I enjoyed the interview, but it wasn't necessary to make a joke every two minutes. Not a terrible problem, but I think Colbert needs to feel more comfortable occasionally doing an interview where he doesn't feel the need to be "funny." Craig Ferguson was good at that. As goofy as he could be, he also knew how to get serious from time to time, and the audience welcomed it. Colbert is extremely intelligent, and I think he'll eventually feel more comfortable with that as well.
Excellent point
Colbert hasn't been funny since he left the Daily Show.
This was a great interview. Would have loved to see more.
great interview...wish it was longer. fascinated with what he had to say.
Justice Breyer is quiet, thoughtful and kind. Gracious humility in action.
I've just finished a most exciting listen-to featuring Mr. Justice Stephen Breyer. He held my attention all the way, not only for the masterful content but his magnificent delivery, worthy of the Old Vic. (I don't have my glasses on, but I think I see C-Span, Book TV.) Some years ago, I had the pleasant pleasure of listening to Mr. Justice Arthur Goldberg and had the audacity to question him as to what he abdicated a seat on the SCOTUS to take up the thankless, dreadful job, of US Ambassador to the UN, robbing the American people of a brilliant jurist. I must say that between the two justices, Mr. Justice Breyer was the more dynamic in terms of presentation!
Let's take a moment to appreciate the band for the incredible and unique music the are playing at this show, It's different and not like the usual boring music every other late show plays, Bravo
Never raise your voice in anger
Enter Kavanaugh
what would you do if somebody falsely accused you of being a gang rapist? you realize that entire farce was debunked
Simon Phoenix go away troll
@@simonphoenix5768 Kavanaugh doesn't belong in the company of the other Justices. Incredibly poor temperament and yes a question mark over his past.
Simon Phoenix really wasn’t debunked. He had a senate hearing where nothing happened. Which is true of most senate hearings, because the senators suck at questioning witnesses. He wasn’t proven guilty, but he wasn’t vindicated either.
Commenters here probably watched the cnn highlights
Is A Wiser Man this Guy
Deserves to be called Justice!
amazing interview.
Thanks Stephen for producing quality, entertaining, educational programming that's not brought to me by me.
Colbert is the talk show host we need, not the one we deserve. #colbertnation
Good to see Stephen hasn't dummed it down for broadcast television.
Amazing interview and amazing answers for questions. I think that's the fundamental difference between someone that constantly has to campaign and give the country a positive image and someone that was selected based entirely on their expertise by people who are familiar with the qualities necessary for the position. They don't have to deflect the tough questions or stipulate that everything is a softball. It's good to know what some element of the government, regardless of their actual decisions, do what is necessary in a professional and reasonable way without a bunch of partisan bickering, bags of money behind closed doors, and ruthless attacks with a varying levels of truth.
That opening tune was pretty smooth.
He speaks slowly and wisely, like a grandfather. Or an Ent.
Also, I want in interview with Ginsberg!!
This feels like one of the smartest things on television. Just really genuine.
I think all that is about to change. This is what a SC judge should sound and be like.
Bring Breyer back and allow him a longer slot!
The intro music is awesome!
I thought this was a disappointing interview. Justice Breyer played second fiddle to actress Emily Blunt, he was never asked about profoundly important recent decisions like Citizens United, and same-sex marriage, he never got to speak about his book which examines the evolution of law in the increasingly interconnected 21st century. What shame Colbert didn't do more with this rare opportunity.
+Sarfaraz Hussein Merchant It's because it is highly considered inappropriate for members of SCOTUS to discuss cases in the public. It was likely a prerequisite for J. Breyer coming on the show.
@106908592444175346338 That's entirely possible. However, he deals with controversial issues and decisions in his new book. A book he is promoting. They have very different social energies: Breyer is quite slow and methodic; Colbert brash and witty, which somewhat clashed, quite awkward at points. I'll concede I could be wrong. That's just my take.
+Sarfaraz Hussein Merchant Well there can't help but be a clash in style. Colbert lives in the talk show format of which gives you only 7 minutes to get as much as you can, and you need to be direct and witty to milk it. Breyer comes from the Supreme Court, where arguments go all day, and a single sigh can last 7 minutes. I'm sure the idea of talking Supreme Court Law in 7 minute segments would have horrified Breyer.
And likely, we would have all known the answer for Citizens United, it would have been something like "it does not represent the views of the justices on campaign finance, they just have to interpret the law as it is written. When the law does not mention a situation directly, it is up to justice to glean from it's language how it should be applied in an area that may not have been considered when it was written. Should justices stick to language, historical intent, or context when these things conflict, should they be read narrowly or broadly, etc? These are the points of debate".
And that's half the interview gone there, just another long description of their job description, which is what they give always because they are sick of people seeing them as politicians advocating for the causes they believe in. They are interpreters. So Colbert tied to avoid this tedious path by going for a more human intro to a Supreme Court Justice.
Do you not know how the SCOTUS acts? Rarely if ever does a SCOTUS justice reiterate an opinion on a case publically unless its in an academic setting. They write their opinions and judgements for a reason. Go read them.
Really interesting interview! I only wish it was longer an Stephen didn't interrupt him so much
How awesome!!! Justice Stephen Breyer is super.
I'm an aspiring law student in Europe and I will this book because Stephen Breyer was so good.
Colbert doesn't hold back with questions in any interview.
+Ieden Hameed he did with jeb
Hey Fallon, you're great, you really are, but… try and top this. Just try.
+sottotitolifattibene John Oliver>Colbert>Fallon
+sottotitolifattibene there will be no lipsynching Supremes , thankfully.
XxKNightROxX Oliver and Colbert keep raising the bar. Then there's Conan, then Fallon. At least until Sam Bee comes around.
***** Maybe! When he's interviewing managers, politicians and supreme court judges, it reminds me a lot of Letterman's serious interviews...
+sottotitolifattibene He would throw that stupid fake laugh the whole fucking time
love the fact that you have people from all walks of life!
This is so rare. Justices usually never make public appearances when they are in office
They do its just rare for it to not be an academic setting. Justices give academic speechs and panels somewhat frequently tbh But in this kind of forum its definitely a rare occurrence.
One of the best judges we've got right now
Because metaphor there flying at 50 feet above, with that much experience. Bless you.
Justice Breyer has the most interesting mannerisms and way of speaking..
Compared to Scalia? Breyer had nothing on Scalia.
For some reason I wish the interview was longer. Where is JRE (Joe Rogan Experience) to do a 3 hour podcast when you need him.
+Nqina Dlamini There is a very long moderated conversation between Breyer and Scalia moderated by ACS and the Federalist Society on CZcams. Look it up.
bring him back for the entire show!
Awesome interview.
Colbert is such a great interviewer
Such good points all around
Great show XD
Sc justices in stead of celebrities, very refreshing. Thank you!
Wow, i never knew Breyers true brilliance until this interview
All the best Sir
This was one of the best late-night talkshow interviews I've seen. Breyer's a boss.
put cams in the courts! i wanna see!
An analogy of why we can't view the Supreme Court on TV: Imagine not knowing anything about how medicine is treated and you walk into a room of doctors performing heart surgery. What would your reaction be? In this day and age "distortion" of the media is common and I wouldn't be surprise if #barbaricdoctors would trend on twitter.
Excellent explanation of why no cameras in the court.
It's good to question these people.
Wish it could have been longer. Great to see Colbert not have to interview in character because he can get straight to the questions directly without (most of) the sarcasm.
Very interesting what he said about the courts. It's nice that there's no animosity on the court.
This man compared to the newly appointed supreme court judge...hmmmm...no comparison!
Nice to see interviews with people instead of nonsense celebrities!
Get ready for angry Kavanaugh.. 😶
That was awesome
the last part of this interview is so relevent for whats happening right now with the kavanaugh hearing
that is a serious man. i really liked him. So professional and impressive. I agree with the other comments. I want to hear more about what he has to say.
Shaking your lawmaker!
I think Breyer was up for a more serious conversation and I wish Colbert let it happen.
for the first time ever im a fan of this show. Stephen Colbert is the best late night host. im so glad he's taking over. not fake as fuck like Jimmy Fallon!
What is the intro music?
This is why I'm happy there's no cameras in the supreme four. You can tell this guy is not a politician, he's used to sitting quietly and trying to understand something without trying to impress and audience with soundbites and distort his goals with crowd-pleasing BS. You just have to look at him and Sotomayor speak vs. when Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton when they speak to see that he still has life in his eyes, and the pleasure has not yet been beat out of speaking and reasoning for him.
What a lovely man
You are yelling at me right now😂😂🤣🤣
I like how that coffee story went nowhere.
This man's sincerity is intimidating.
Fab interview
brilliant!
The thumbnail depicts Stephen Colbert staring into his future.
Colbert isn’t serious enough to do an interview of this magnitude
The court isn’t what it was today. Today they work for one party that’s not American. Very few left as wonderful as Justice Breyer.
*For you friend* [that go to law school]. For you [Attorney, Lawyer, Judge]. And for you [yes, you that seems to always want to challenge the law]. Please, pay special attention to minute 3:10-5:25.