It’s ‘possible’ Dobbs could be overturned: Justice Breyer full interview
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 03. 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.
» 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
#StephenBreyer #SupremeCourt #Democracy
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
I appreciate Justice Breyer's candor. A trait I admire is he is not afraid to say "I'm not going to answer that question," rather than dissemble and lie. I wish he hadn't retired - he's sharp as a tack, and possesses wisdom the current Court seems to lack.
He retired at the right time. He had his time on the court and didn't want to be like RBG holding out to so long she was replaced by someone with the opposite values. Ketanji Brown Jackson is also an sharp and excellent jurist and look to be doing well to live up to Justice Breyer legacy.
The current court seems to lack wisdom because you FEEL strongly about how the court has ruled. You didn't listen to this interview, every one of the decisions is carefully thought out and scrutinized.
@@Oak6 How does he know that is the case, he is no longer on the court?
He's a typical bull- sheighter.
@@timfuscaldo3024 The court didn't radically change in its methodology because Breyer stepped down. He worked with the majority of those judges for decades. There's no reason to assume they've gone to a policy of rushing through decisions, and they haven't
Don't waste time trying to overturn Dobbs. Just codify abortion.
Personhood, while we're at it; because no other artificial entity like a corporation should have rights that occlude individual human and civil rights. There is no democracy when a $ = a vote. Demos is The People, not the currency, not the corporation protected from having to be transparent and honest.
Vote for women’s rights abortion is on the Ballot in several states this November
And it is of course also possible, that the overturning of Dobbs could be overturned.
“the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
Precisely- which I felt Breyer is guilty of in this case by abstaining from ANY sort of answer (or even a clue) signaling his issue with at LEAST TWO corrupt judges.
And this interview is a perfect example of a good man doing nothing.
This interview was performed by an activist reporter and News organization! Kudos to Justice Breyer for refusing to take the bait(s) and step in the mire!! Regardless, this reporter, though only doing her job for FAKE News/NBC, is so irritating!
@@lisakeane4386 Make that four.
And a Chief Justice with no spine.
Welker asked the right questions. She’s just not clever enough to ask them in a way that she got more insightful answers. If she asked questions that didn’t cover current cases in front of the court, Breyer gave very interesting answers. Ask the same topic but use past cases or hypothetical ones. Even then, Breyer is no dummy and will be careful in his answers.
Brilliant people such as myself have been saying for twenty years that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be a disaster for the GOP. How right we were!
"Brilliant people such as myself"..
@@tonytravelerroute66 if I don't blow my own horn, who will blow it?
It was time that the bigots of the GOP were put forward for all to see!
@@Kermit_T_Frog You are confused ANY Supreme Court decision is subject to being overturned. And Roe v, Wade, which was a particularly poorly reasoned decision, was vulnerable from the day it was decided.
@@Kermit_T_Frog Do a little research into the history of First Amendment law. (I especially recommend "The People's Darling Privilege: Struggles for Free Speech in American History", by Michael Kent Curtis and "Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1870-1920", by David Rabban.) And then ask yourself where we would be if First Amendment law had not started to radically change about one hundred years ago. Regards.
What a tremendous interview! We lost much when he retired from SCOTUS. A truly thoughtful jurist.
He has a good successor, and now he has more time to speak and write books.
100% agree
agree but He also had to deal with the legacy that RBG's death left us with. what the gop did to take advantage of her death. as well as what was done with the death that left us with kavanaugh again because of what the gop did. He chose to leave during the beginning of Bidens term to avoid the same possibility happening again. to avoid another conservitive federalist judge being forced down our throats.
Now we can hear his thinking on matters of the law instead of dying in office like his predecessors. He is a brilliant man and jurist. We the public get to read his book and hear his interviews. He can speak more freely now that he has retired from the Supreme Court.
@@rfresa Now we need at least four more successors to replace the three Trump appointees for lack of qualifications, Thomas and Alito for corruption, and Roberts for spinelessness, for allowing the foxes in the henhouse to go nuts.
Textualism and Originalism treat the Constitution as essentially a historical, dead document. I believe the Framers meant it to be a dynamic, living document that will adapt as knowledge increases.
Article 5 explains how to change the constitution. They PLANNED for change. It is not frozen for all time.
There wouldn’t be any amendments if the framers thought the constitution was a done deal.
As the justice said, encompassing our basic values and those we are working toward, pliable and applied in a modern context. As I have always understood it, A Living Document.
💯
I believe the Framers meant it to be a dynamic
--
They not.
Justice Breyer is clearly top notch.
Sandra Day O'Connor also stated after her retirement from SCOTUS that the Supreme Court should not have accepted the Gore v. Bush/2000 Election
They shouldn't have. In the end Gore got more votes. Bush did not win and I have to wonder how things would of worked out if he never happened.
What a better world we would be living in today.
@@michellemaxner8638
Yes Exactly 💯
George W Bush started the 21st century of hardcore in this country and it gave Reaganomics a definite Ressurection
@@michellemaxner8638💯👍🏻 So true!
Imagine 8 years Al Gore and 8 years Hillary Clinton instead of 8 years Bush and 4 years Trump!
@@maximilianemusterfrau1265 It's strange how even Republicans tend to despise the Bush years, yet they can't connect the dots.
Smart man, we need more judges like him, at all levels of the judiciary
Every time I hear Justice Breyer refuse to comment, I ponder if RBG was around and how different her response would be.
Too bad she didn’t leave the court until Trump was president
He is freer now than when was a jurist.
Not giving his opinion on these questions is the fine point of professionalism.
Unfortunate he does not want to comment on how corrupt the court system has become.
Didn't more than half the country think Bush v Gore was wrong?
No
Bush loses the popular vote but wins the election with the help of the supremely partisan court. @@dannywilliams2358
@@dannywilliams2358 More than half of the folks who voted in the election, since Bush lost the popular vote.
@@untrueman then it's a good thing the popular vote is completely meaningless.
Yes, considering Bush lost the popular vote.
I am fed up with the supreme court.
@darrell20741 you are far from the only one 🤦♀️ And we can't do anything about it which makes it infuriating 😤
So, what do we collectively do?
I think we pressure our congress people to push the Executive for expanding the court by 4 or 5 more justices. 3 liberal and one or two moderates.
Impeach Thomas. He is the most egregious example of corruption. It's a start.
Justice Breyer could do more service for the country speaking out rather than protecting the corrupt court with silence.
I agree. Let's experiment... a bit more! release all transcripts 100 percent transparency and cams in the court.
Oh my God-YES! This interview frustrated me SO much!! Sir! Now is not the time to act smart and be cagey!!
And the part where he implies that it is basically “ok” for Thomas no to recuse himself…UGH.
@@oldnepalihippie YES!!! This!!! Want to remove the corruption, publicize the court hearings - I don't think it's any different that other court session - only that they have a higher profile.
@@lisakeane4386Breyer should take acting classes if he wants to pull that one off convincingly. But I don't think he cares, he's that arrogant about his lack of transparency. Of all the norms broken of late, he's gonna focus on that one norm? spill the beans m f e r
@@lisakeane4386 Agree, it was a waste of time.
Seems quite disingenuous of Mr. Breyer to say that like his wife, Ginni Thomas is an independent woman, as if Clarence doesn't know everything she did to plan and try to execute the insurrection. He really isn't giving much hope when he thinks that SCOTUS is doing the people's work - NOT
This was incredibly “pie in the sky” thinking, IMO.
You are on the money with your comment
@@lisakeane4386 no its not.
@@lisakeane4386 At best.
Remember: Trump called Nikki Haley a “birdbrain whose voters have no place in Trump’s MAGA party!” 🥵
I think you're off-topic.
I felt like Welker’s questions were a little too direct and obvious at times here. This represents a missed opportunity, given how rare it is to have such a large amount of time with a SC Justice.
18:15 Justice Breyer may be too optimistic to think we still have or will have rule of law when capture of SCOTUS has caused the lowest approval rating in history.
After listening to this interview, it seems to me that a Judge should be well versed in History. Then the Judge can understand the context of the law when it was written. They should understand the constitution was not written for everyone before. The Judge with good insight over time can make better decisions as we progress as a people.
I loved listening to Justice Breyer he's great & missed on the Supreme Court
Please get Rachel Maddow to host this show. We need someone who can keep up intellectually and think on her feet.
yeah. I found myself rolling my eyes at some of the questions.
And repeating the same mistake of politely withdrawing from every question of any real import. This interview was worthy of a C or D segment of a personality show, not news.
“But let me ask one more question..” 😂
I do think Maddow could keep up a bit more- but Breyer is pretty darn smart and i don’t think he’d be answering questions any more than he did if faced with a more worthy adversary.
Suggesting Rachel Maddow is a intellectual is one of the most laughable things I've seen in these comments.
@@Oak6 says the person who doesn't know when to use "an" rather than "a."
I've had supreme crunchwraps more supreme than this gaggle of unelected judges. Life-time appointments are ridiculous.
I'm from Trenton NJ. 2 SC Justices grew up where I'm from Alito and Scalia. I know how they will vote every time. They are both from the part of Trenton where my mother taught for 30 years..
OMG Justice Breyer is a pleasure to listen to. If only we had more Judges like him today.
In between lines all I heard from Breyer is everything is common sense and indirectly SCOTUS has ruptured and not aware of history and current stand by SCOTUS is bad approach and should change course and has loss the SCOTUS value. My apology if I heard his lines wrongly and perhaps he should said more directly instead of putting words in his mouth.
BS, Thomas and Alito are the most corrupt ever…they are not doing their best. The most corrupt SCOTUS in history.
That's correct, senator Whitehouse has done excellent deep dives on exposing this.
Oh BS. You don’t get what you want and you cry 😭 😭 😭 and whine. Get yourself a pacifier and a blanket until you grow up.
Does the senator carry around a extra pair of panties to twist?
@@bardsamok9221 But who is listening?
@@luckystoller6171 hopefully patriots are listening, locking and loading
Because it just seems important to the Heritage Society.
This is why I've always admired Justice Breyer. He's disciplined and unable to be swayed, even under the scrutiny of serious questioning. Throughout his time on the Supreme Court, he could be trusted with his deliberations because he was always aware of the big picture and what potential effects it would have in the future. Great interview!
I believe that Judge Breyer feels that during his time in the court, the other justices treated other with professionalism irregardless of their political leanings. I'd like to know if he truly feels this way with the current court, particularly with the presence of Thomas.
Extraordinary interview, thank you.
Around 1:05:00, Justice Breyer basically admits that it is only the vanity of judges that prevents cameras in the courts. Your vanity/ego doesn't supersede our right to know what you're doing with our money.
The applause goes away until you rewrite a precedent that's been standing for 50 years. Then you get half the applause back. Judges shouldn't rewrite laws by judicial review
wonderful! if only every american could see and understand this program!
I found this interview upsetting because he felt like he couldn't answer any of the very relevant and important questions. I think he still thinks he's a judge. And can't have his own opinion or ideas expressed.
He doesn't have any
He is still part of the institution of the Supreme Court. If he was to assert an opinion, people would use his words and run with it. Being measured in your words is an amazing attribute in a judge, and honestly a person. I think it's good that he doesn't say anything too controversial to let the actions of the current court stand and force those currently on the bench to explain their decisions in their written opinion.
As much as I would like to hear his perspective, he is in the right not to express an opinion in these cases because it can be taken out of context or someone may mince his words.
@@mysteriousth1ef or...it's nobody's business but his
I agree with you. He's spineless. Why agree to an interview when you can't answer any questions? If he's a judge, and he feels like it's not appropriate to talk about cases, then why be on television? Ridiculous.
I say this as one who tends to be an Institutionalist, I wish Breyer would understand that there are corrupt extremist rightwingers who are seeking to use our institutions against them. We cannot behave normally when the institutions are under attack. He should take a page from his correct approach of pragmatism and speak up in these abnormal times.
Of course he understands.
Likely there's some important reason why he's openly avoiding the truth about the captured SCOTUS
@@bardsamok9221 This interview actually led me to trust him far less and be more wary of ALL the justices, whether I like them or not. Now IS the time to stand up. There are no other SCOTUS retirees to call out shenanigans, much less institutional crimes. No huddling when the very basis of our country is at stake. This isn't a social club with secret rites. It seems another case of privilege blinding. By not speaking out, he's, at best, submitting to being used by the cadre of authoritarians who count on our tradition and trust that "Everything's fine; everything's just fine," as the gap in our defenses. He presents himself as a Martin Niemöller. Must be nice not to belong to any marginalized categories who need worry.
@@BaskingInObscurityI 💯 agree and I’m glad it wasn’t just me who thought this!
@@bardsamok9221 How did you arrive at your conclusion "of course he understands?"
Did he state that he understands the corrupt rightwing extremists pose an risk to SCOTUS? Or are you just guessing?
@@BaskingInObscurity It disgusts me that he does not stand up and speak his mind.
This book is wonderfully engaging. I can't recommend it enough.
Loved hearing from Justice Breyer. Too bad he can't replace the criminal Thomas.
Too bad there isn't a WAY to replace him. A comatose garden snail would be a step upward. A thoughtful jurist would be beyond all expectations.
Good historians know that they cannot completely ’know’ what people of the past were thinking and experiencing. They try to get as close to it as they can and they argue, in a mostly friendly manner, about it.
A brilliant jurist, but his refusal to comment is unfortunate.
TRUTH.
So you and your mob can attempt to take his words and run with them? Do you think he really has time to go through and entire decision much less many of them in a short interview?
@@Oak6 What mob? The American people?
To my lawyer’s ears, he is commenting loudly and clearly-the Supremes are moving too fast, and making seriously wrong decisions as a result. As for the interviewer, she is terrible and ineffective. It’s amazing J Breyer doesn’t say, “Asked and answered” each time she asks the same question. That’s why it seems that he isn’t commenting four square. The Justice is being diplomatic. J. Breyer is also saying the majority is lazy.
I get the impression that if one reads the book, one will see a lot of strong comments "between the lines" and realize they are "hidden in plain sight" in this interview.
If he can’t answer anything then why is he there?
A lot of I can’t answer then am stay home!
Wonderful interview, and historic!
Yes, distrust occurs… Thomas should step out of Supreme Court. I was ashamed of the Supreme Court for allowing him to stay. Ashamed of him.
And it is of course also possible, that the overturning of Dobbs could be overturned.
Thank you Justice Breyer! Your voice is needed now more than ever!
If he's this tight lipped in person, what would his book be like? I have no interest in buying and reading about absolutely nothing.
It was not MAGA groups helping during covid
Great interview. I have one major criticism of Breyer though; when asked about the gifts and transparency his answer was full of obfuscation and gaslighting. Even if the 7 volumes of ethics don't spell out that you shouldn't accept 250K RVs as gifts I think most logical people would conclude it is an ethical issue and not reporting it is against the "rules".
"I don't mean to be coy"...Me holding two opposing feelings at the same time, a class act SCJ and a profoundly frustrating interview!!
What a waste of time watching this, should have cut it down to 10 minutes eliminating all the questions he refused to answer.
He refuses to comment on recent court judgments. How does he view the former president, Trump, on his comments considering his power and following.
Justice Breyer declined answering *All* SCOTUS questions or was vague, therefore it was a waste of journalistic time
Why interview this guy if he’s going to evade all the important questions?
How old is Justice Breyer? Look how sharp he is!
I looked it up! He is 85!
They lead cloistered lives and it shows.
What A brilliant, open minded, and delightful person. Sincerity, recognition of the magnitude of the job, and honesty.
Breyer won’t say anything negative about the other justices.
Using methods that ask what the context is the foundation of critical thinking. Context must be considered.
I respect justice Breyer, but it somewhat disturbs me that he did not give his opinion as a now private citizen about the most burning issues at the present. He should have commented about J6 and our right to know about presidential immunity issue.
You have only brilliant mind if you make your reasoning of burning issues known. Brilliant mind gets lost if it is kept only in one head.
The choice is whether or not one views the constitution as a living document. I do! It lives in today! Vote Blue for its preservation!
All of the "I can't answer that question" was off putting.
Anything's possible. Not likely tho.
This judge does not want to talk about trump
Justice Bryer is such an interesting mind. He also has a very strong moral compass. I wish we could say the same of ALL our current SCOTUS members.
there is NO difficulty with the abortion decision issue, NO government has the right to take upon a woman's health care choice based on a religious ideology. According to the Bible, life does not begin until the first breath which is after birth. No difficulty at all in a decision. Government has overreached their control and power over individual freedom.
I always believed that the Constitution should be a living and breathing document. Meaning that it grows with the changes in time. We add Amendments when it's warranted, and we can make changes with technology or other means that will come up in the future.
What does it say about a whole Congressional party being controlled by Fascist Russian agents? We need a bit of help here.
I'm 43 minutes in... Welker hasn't asked Breyer about Starry Decisis yet. At all. That is the problem with the new court. She could at least ask him about the concept. Most ppl probably don't know
Wonderful interview!
The Supreme Court needs reeducating, or replaced
What a smart, alert, delightful old fella.
I find Justice Breyer an incredible wise and just man. I even caught myself trying to apply intellect and common sense problem solving approach to the bear joke he told. 😂😂😂 Which, in my humble opinion, turned out to be a paradoxical riddle. (Puting the running 🏃♂️ 🏃♂️ shoes on wouldn't guarantee the person to outrun a bear but it would give him an advantageous chance to outrun the next possible bear victim. 🐻 🤔 So what is the paradox? Well, by the time person A puts on his/hers running shoes, person B would be far ahead of person A and the risk would outweigh the benefit or the very least annul it.
This was a great Meet the Press interview and I can't way to get my hands on Justice Breyer's book. Thank you! 😊
I think you are supposed to tell the bear: "I think
I think you are supposed to tell the bear: "These shoes are full of CFC's and other toxins. Go after that guy." Then you don't have to outrun anyone. And besides, you may have a great conversation about environmental decline. Toxic waste dumps, raking forests, whatever. 🥸
I am 75. In my life I have seen bad Congresses and bad presidents, but I always thought if it got out of control the Supreme Court would right the most important things in law. I am heartbroken at the court being controlled by rightwing religious extremists. I fear for our children and grandchildren.
We miss Justice Breyer!
Shame on the Russian, raicist GOP
❤❤😊cesar
Thanks for this interview. Excellent. Everyone who votes should have to see this.
The best interview of our time….if only we had leadership with such clarity, devotion integrity and knowledge….. and willingness to ask more of the American people.
The best of our time? Sensationalist much?
It was horrible, he refuses to answer questions, he defends current corruption, he did not comment on the current state of affairs, the interview was a waste of time unless you wanted to hear the old US is the greatest stick,
No, my disagreement is that Roberts believes, that he is more than the Supreme Court Justin! ,
Rather , he’s the chief of a “supreme government”,
Further, has quite openly said so
This judge is a lesson to all, judges how to be open to truth
He can’t/won’t answer the questions. Why sit for the interview? He is not a judge anymore.
Smart pick, haven't had much intellectually based picks to be on the court since then
We didn't have a US army or any other military group either, such as navy, etc. Thus the rights to own guns for "a well regulated militia" had a monumentally different meaning and effect than the right to bear arms does today.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I agree with him on this. It’s just common sense.
Common Sense has no place in the Rule of Law. Sorry.
Sure it is possible. The hard part is finding an actual path to regrant the right without looking at vague and fuzzy shapes in the constitition.
How about just letting the People vote in order to grant actual rights to abortion to their state constitutions, as it is happening right now? There is no need for Judges to legislate from the bench on the issue of abortion. It is actually prohibited for a Judge to legislate from the bench, because seperation of powers. The power to legislate belongs to Congress and the State Legislatures, not the Courts and Judes with lifetime appointment, who cannot be voted out by the People.
I thought the President is immune from civil cases but not criminal.
Judge what is a dog
Judge; i cant explain it
I think this interview is a bit beyond your caliber.
@@Oak6 No, Walters analogy is spot on.
Hi
Wasn’t the constitution supposed to be a framework for how we govern ourselves? It wasn’t intended to outline our rights, that was an afterthought to get adopted. It was a living framework. The laws under it should fall within the framework, changing with the times.
Great interview, I learned a great deal.
Welker is an AWFUL interviewer… is she listening to anything Judge Breyer is saying? And she repeats the same question again and again…sigh!
Welker, not walker
@@themaestro7922 autocorrect….
He did not leave her with much to talk about since he refused to answer anything relevant to the current state of the courts and this country. Maybe she should have talked about sports.
just to be clear....i dont understand the words coming out of your mouth
There doesn't have to be a law on abortion. Canada has no law. Canada treats abortion the same as any other medical procedure. You want a law? Pass a law that medical practitioners are the people who make medical decisions in consultation with their patients.
At first I respected Justice Breyer's clear refusal to weigh in on current cases, but as the interview progressed it became clear that he truly has no issue with holding immense power in a lifelong position; that he opposes the transparency cameras would give the court discussions; that he will not speak openly about the obvious corruption of the court (and how could he, when he did not choose to do so while he was working there); that even in the face of leaks and ethics breaches like Thomas not recusing himself he does not think a code of ethics is necessary. The underlying philosophy here is a love of power., no matter how much its misuse damages democracy.
This is a horrible interview. Kristin Walker should seek gainful employment in a different field.
She is not exactly the most ept reporter out there.
Gentle but persistent questioning. It's OK to take a couple of swings in search of an insightful answer. She ain't no Mike Wallace, and that's a good thing.
@@corsair707 no, it's not. Flailing. No one should ever know what a journalists opinion is. That's not journalism. It's a tabloid talk show. Jerry Springer
Entertainment Tonight, perhaps.
Well spoken, but quit weaseling. Of course you are qualified to comment on the cases before the SCOTUS.
This conversation was pointless when it comes to analyzing the court and court cases (why you would bring an X judge)
Did you actually watch the whole thing
The conversation was invaluable in my eyes. It wasn’t about refuting or providing support for particular viewpoints. Justice Breyer provided information about making judicial (nonpartisan) decisions to maintain fidelity to constitutional principles. As US citizens, many of us lack information about how the system is intended to work and the constraints on the 3 branches of government ( in this case, the judicial branch).
What is the point of interviewing him if he's not gonna answer questions???
Gah! SO TRUE.
Good lord, she bombed this interview.
He defends the current corruption. Sad. Current corruption is not a mistake, and rules are not followed as he suggests.