CNN’s Wolf Blitzer talks to former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer about the current Supreme Court’s recent rulings and apparent direction. #CNN #News
The last three Judges appointed all definitively lied under oath to Congress. They said "Roe was the law of the land", yet could not wait to find a way to overturn it.
Yep, the Trump appointed sellouts are liars who are willing to reverse your civil rights when and if it pleases their “evangelical” hearts. They are the epitome of unAmerican.
What has he been convicted of? & would any of this be happening if he wasn’t running for president? While we’re at it, why is the border wide open for anyone to come in? 10,000,000 at this point. Imagine if Trump did that. You would be livid. We know why they’re doing this.
Who pedojoe? Yeah its pretty bad. He cant even say the word "play" anymore. He thinks its "paying politics". But he also thinks he and cornpop freed the slaves so...
Breyer is arguing that the tail is wagging the dog. It is precisely the impression that politics, rather than reason and jurisprudence, is driving their rulings that is undercutting their standing in the eyes of the citizenry. They are not making unpopular rulings, they are making blatantly biased political ones.
Everyone who pays attention knew this how they were going to do things. Wait until you see the chaos unleashed when they reverse the Chevron case based on just they don't like that agency experts do what the law says and make rules. Every single federal regulation someone with the cash doesn't like is going to be challenged and without Chevron the circuit court judges are going to have to make rulings about the merits of hyper technical regulatory matters.
Actually this is the first time in a long while that they havent been making political rulings. Read the Constitution. It would do you good. Youve been abdicating your rights for so long you dont even know the rights youve lost.
This felt like a waste of an interview because Justice Breyer kept going in-depth and Blitzer could take that topic deeper, but then he kept moving on to "here's the next point on my predetermined list of things you should talk about" instead of engaging with what he was saying and letting it go where it was going to go. Even while Breyer is talking, I get the sense Blitzer is just thinking about how to go to his next question. The problem with this approach is that the audience is actually listening, not thinking about their own next hot topic, so the effect of a random shift to a new topic every 60 seconds is incoherent. That's my opinion.
I agree. There is proof that you are correct - early in this video, Wolf asks a question and Justice Breyer starts answering it. While Mr. Breyer is speaking, Wolf briefly looks down at his notes on the blue paper on the desk and briefly shuffles them - while his guest is speaking - NOT listening, not making eye contact - just looking for his next question. Dang.
Well, he wants him to say what he knows he will not or cannot as he is still consulted. I think the salient point was made. Also, it's mainly to promote the book, not an in-depth interview.
Breyer spoke to Kirsten Walker on another network, and basically dodged in depth discussion of the majority of topics. He is very reluctant to speak on current topics, so it makes sense that Blitzer knows not to press further.
He would be fascinating to have a one on one conversation with. If only some of the other justices on the court had half the honor and integrity this man bestows.
The only ones respectful right now are the 4 women because they are the only ones that said they were not confortable with the decision of allowing criminals on the voting ballots.
Justice Elena Kagan was concerned about the ethical implications of receiving bagels and lox from her high school friends, over concerns she could be violating the court's ethics rules for accepting gifts.
@@vallejoborncalihasbecomeal9022 the fox angertainment comment section was just asking about you, payaso. You think Donald would lift UN DEDO para TI O TU FAMILIA? JAJAJAJAJAJJAJAJAJJAAJ 🤡
All nine justices just ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says insurrectionists can hold federal office, when its text says the opposite, in clear and unambiguous terms.
Given his comment about a judge paying attention to the era, not the political temperature, would seem to support the idea of term limits for the Supreme Court. I wonder if he has any thoughts on that.
What has he been convicted of? & would any of this be happening if he wasn’t running for president? While we’re at it, why is the border wide open for anyone to come in? 10,000,000 at this point. Imagine if Trump did that. You would be livid. We know why they’re doing this.
Hamilton was wrong. The concerns in 1787 about an imperial Supreme Court accountable to no one were completely on the mark. Appointments should have been for a defined term of years with no renewals.
Good interview with intelligent and wise words from Stephen Breyer. I do understand why he didn't want to say anything about the immunity case, but the delay in that really bleeps me off.
The way he describes textualism reminds me of classmates I’ve had who ask for help with homework and then look annoyed when you ask them have they read their textbook. Just reminds me of intellectual laziness and a lack of desire to do the rigorous work sometimes required to gain clarity. It feels like a cop out. But again this is just what I gain from how he described Scalia’s response of essentially: “Sounds like a lotta work and only people like you are willing to do it, so the merits (sorry for swearing) of your approach are irrelevant.”
I mean, on the one hand, the law is the law, and the words in law matter, BUT there's something to be said for a pragmatic argument that leans more on practicality+the inalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence. The court is at its best when it protects individual rights from government overreach, such as in the Obergefell, Brown, and Loving decisions. It's at its worst when it upholds the government removing rights, such as in the Dred Scott and Dobbs decisions.
I absolutely LOVE this interview because, having watched a few of Justice Breyer's interviews since he left the Court, THIS is the one where you feel like he's finally getting his footing as a former Justice. He's far more confident, learning to balance his role as a former Justice who understands the importance of being restrained and statesman-like in public commentary with the fact that he's now a private citizen who desperately wants to still teach and communicate with the people his past office touches day in and out.
"climate of the era..." Breyer's my favorite justice because of these personal type interviews. He taught me a LOT about SCOTUS over the years. It's 2024 and I really miss those kinds of interviews. Why don't individual justices currently serving do interviews anymore? Hmm.
@@Sarcasmarkus "separate but equal" was a compromise of the 18th century to avoid ripping the country apart. By 1955 American values had changed and the SCOTUS was demanding disintegration of public schools in the South. That's not reading a room.
The politicization of decisions are just a piece of the problem; it's the blatant and rampant ethical lapses that are almost a daily occurrence that makes the public lose trust and respect for the court. Taking bribes, no accountability, nonexistent ethic code makes the justices believe they are above the law they SAY they uphold. We need court reform, ethic standards and term limits for the Supreme Court to earn the public's trust.
It's in shambles. Three of them are Trump picks and they rule in favour regardless . Thomas, Roberts are a stain on the constitution. You have a former President that praises Hitler in one breath and the other says he wants total immunity from any decision that he makes. A proper supreme court would not consider any of this.
it is. one (of MANY) examples: when my dad was born (1930), "terrific" meant terrible. eg: "It was a terrific storm." imagine saying now that "It was a terrific cat5 hurricane."
@@beepboopbeep5456 ANYONE who reads a book older than 50 years needs to understand how words shifted, you child. part of shakespeare actually: "I'm fat and scant of breath" doesn't mean overweight. so tell us all: how is originalism different from Breyer?
@@op3129 The fact that words change meaning over time is why textual originalism is right, because what the words meant when they were written are what the meaning was. If we have a contract, the terms don't change with the language. Neither do laws. What Breyer is advocating is an assumption of popular will in lieu of elections and lawmaking which is actually driven by popular will. He is advocating for no law at all. It isn't complicated or controversial, except to the intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Mr Blitzer, this is very good. You should bring in voices from the Commonwealth so many rich voices you can tap into. The US started off with Common Law norms but as a distinctive entity separate from Britain. We all benefit from the 'shady, leafy protection' from the scorching sun of 'codified law' which normally results in violent popularism (U.S. Independence, Haiti, France during the Revolution). Please explore this further.
Wolf Blitzer looks like he’s getting a lecture from his grand dad after he asked “what’s a textualist” and “does the president have absolute immunity?”
It would be great if CNN or other folks interviewing the Justice would defer the interviews from their usual hosts to their legal experts so that the conversation could be with someone who had the experience to ask questions befitting the rare opportunity; these hosts are too much of generalists and are terrible at questioning Breyer.
Identify those who wants the current SCOTUS. The federalist society, large corporations, the republican party. The current SCOTUS exists bc powerful interests want it.
Wahhh...i don't like half this country, my team isn't winning, let me change the rules and flip the game board. Just pack the court with you judges while we're at it.
What has he been convicted of? & would any of this be happening if he wasn’t running for president? While we’re at it, why is the border wide open for anyone to come in? 10,000,000 at this point. Imagine if Trump did that. You would be livid. We know why they’re doing this.
@@PedoPeterandcrackboy it’s just sad lol they’re all going to be out of work once he is done with the political world. They have zero charisma, just orange man bad!
The "perfect crime"? Be born superrich, do everything in your life in broad daylight, hire the most ruthless lawyers - and if you are afraid of getting cought in the end: run for president?
The court doesn't "produce a constitution". There is a process for amending the constitution. If that is too burdensome, then amend the constitution to make the amendment process easier. If constitutionalism puts us in an intolerable straightjacket, then abandon constitutionaism. But the idea that we can have a constitution that is not actually a constitution is incoherent. Constitutions are a needed emendation to majority rule, but the rights of minorities that are exempt from majority tyranny have to be clearly stated in the constitution, otherwise judicial discretion can be put at the service of any group whatsoever. Woodrow Wilson thought constitutionalism was obsolete and said so. At least he had the honesty and clarity to state his conviction accurately, unlike the weasel words of people like Bryer who no longer believe in the concept but profess to want to keep a constitution. Translate what he says into English and you get: "I want courts that can override legislatures in any and all matters provided they rule the way I like."
Presidential system was devised for a farming community of 4 million people with a very simple life view. It does not work in a pluralistic country of millions. Presidential systems have proved to create dictatorships. You need direct ministerial responsibility. Break it down into electoral portfolios with STV vote: foreign affairs, justice, revenue, regulation, social welfare etc. Maybe with 2-3 elected for each portfolio. Then people can vote for policies instead of tribes. And representatives will have to work instead of grand-standing.
@@KygrannyNone. All current forms of government were devised before the information age for societies with far simpler issues. That's why you see fascists being elected in Europe by people who don't necessarily want fascism but are forced to vote for a bucket of policies, and choose which is most important to them. It disempowers people. In parliamentary democracies with MMP at leastt individuals can be voted out in electorates, governments appoint ministers responsible for ministries which are individually accountable can be and are voted out for unpopular policies or incompetence. (They don't dare keep corrupt MPs on their list, they are instantly fired on a whiff of bad faith.) But even that's too unanswerable.
@@Sarcasmarkus"same existential issues, just more people." YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR IGNORANCE - OR YOUR EMPLOYER'S STUPIDITY THINKING THAT EVERYONE ELSE ID SO STUPID.
It's the same argument theologians have. How can anyone believe that people in 1776 were able to articulate the needs of all future people? We have to interpret all this stuff. But it's not terribly surprising that a voting body of biblical literalists (the religious right/maga) would put a supreme court of constitutional literalists.
Fantastic news, thank you so much Wolfe and CNN. This is important. Hopefully, those who need to hear this key news, will. Best wishes from neighbours to the north 🇨🇦
Putin WAITED until his BUDDY, Biden was in office before massing troops on the Ukraine border and invading. THANK BIDEN for a war that wouldn't have happened under Trump
term limits are in place cuz they wanted to keep the US constitution in focus from the day it was created, every time someone new is added that takes a little bit away from the original context and meaning of what the founding fathers created. @@phoque121
*_Everyone please note and share: to see all comments, click the "sort by" above the list and select "newest"._* *_the default "Top" is not a "sort by". YT filters comments._* 🤐 (Please upvote this comment to keep it at the top so people can see it.)
8:44 and THIS America!! is why we need Term Limits on the Supreme Court.. & Code of Ethics Reviews granting Congress the authority to force a justice to recuse from certain cases if necessary.. This was never intended to be Feudalism.. no one should have this much power.. even if they're respected judges with uncontested dockets
The Supreme Court justices are selected for life so they can keep the intent of the US Constitution that the creators intended, the farther away you get from the first blood the more you loose. Getting new Supreme Court justices every couple years would certainly remove a lot of the intent of the US Constitution that its creators so desired. Its the same as when people come to the US and do not honor the flag, US laws, have little regard for anything that the US stands for and the US is then on a downward spiral from its original intent for freedoms and democracy! @@SecretEyeSpot
Stand up America. Everything that you hold dear is at stake. Greetings from all your friends and one of your most reliable allies since WW2 down in Australia. 🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸
I'm reminded every day when I go shopping, pay bills, buy gas, buy food, clothing, etc who I am voting for - its Donald Trump, He had America and the world on a good roll - no super high inflation, crime rates were down, no wars and no chaos and turmoil - I'm voting for Donald Trump!
In my humble opinion, SCOTUS is no longer functional and serve the justice and need to put the HOUSE in order to repair SCOTUS or otherwise to be put in the museum for historical record for the good things they have served in the past.
Wolf Blizter thanks for your honesty you is the only honest decent truthful respectful journalist at CNN we rely on you for honesty and you are most certainly doing that for that we thank you. God bless you. Keep the little that left of honest journalism
Thomas Paine said it should be reviewed every seven years. When a high functioning person like Mr Paine tells you what to do and you choose not to then history frowns.
For some reason Justice Breyer seems for me to bring to mind Ryan Gilbey’s obituary comment in The Guardian about the character and temperament of perennial master journeyman actor Tom Wilkinson, that he “possessed many of the qualities of a favourite raincoat: he was unflashy, steadfast and could usually be relied upon when conditions were unfavourable.” I deeply admire low-key competence. To me Justice Breyer presents it clearly.
Breyer and Roberts could have joined in a better Dobbs decision, but Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas weren't going to allow that. The main issue in Dobbs was whether a 15 week limit was constitutional, not whether states should be allowed to enact complete bans on abortion.
![[가로] 지코 (ZICO) - SPOT! (Feat. JENNIE) [더 시즌즈-지코의 아티스트] | KBS 240426 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/14QfH-VblqI/mqdefault.jpg)
McConnell was dishonorable in handling scotus and a dishonorable process can't produce an honorable court.
He is worse then Trump. He is a traitor to his oath of office sat back and let Trump destroy this country.
Worse than dishonorable! If it wasn’t from McConnell, we wouldn’t still be dealing with Trump or Roe versus Wade
No single senator has harmed power country more than Mitch McConnell his legacy will go down in flames
Ah so its Lurch's fault youre obsessed with Trump now eh? @@bradf2442
Its not SCOTUS it is now MAGACOTUS!
We have a SC w/ three justices that lied under oath. What is more dishonorable than that?
DECEIVING AND MISLEADING IS STILL LYING AND PERJURY AND THEY ALL LIED
@@warrenkelly7720 GOOO GIRLL!!!!!
The last three Judges appointed all definitively lied under oath to Congress. They said "Roe was the law of the land", yet could not wait to find a way to overturn it.
fg putting them there.
Yep, the Trump appointed sellouts are liars who are willing to reverse your civil rights when and if it pleases their “evangelical” hearts. They are the epitome of unAmerican.
trump isn't arguing he's innocent, he's arguing he has the right to be a criminal
Both DJT and Joe Butcher need to go.
🙏🏿🇵🇸❤️
So true
Trump living comfortably rent-free in the heads of the mockingbird media cult 🤣
What has he been convicted of? & would any of this be happening if he wasn’t running for president?
While we’re at it, why is the border wide open for anyone to come in? 10,000,000 at this point. Imagine if Trump did that. You would be livid. We know why they’re doing this.
Trump living comfortably rent-free in the heads of the mockingbird media cult
Listening to him speak reminds me of how far we have fallen.
It sure does.
Yep 😢
Who pedojoe? Yeah its pretty bad. He cant even say the word "play" anymore. He thinks its "paying politics". But he also thinks he and cornpop freed the slaves so...
Disaster to follow his justice.
He is advocating legislating from the bench.
Breyer is arguing that the tail is wagging the dog. It is precisely the impression that politics, rather than reason and jurisprudence, is driving their rulings that is undercutting their standing in the eyes of the citizenry. They are not making unpopular rulings, they are making blatantly biased political ones.
Yes, the conservative majority leaning goes beyond mere textualism.
that's how originalism works.
figure out what decision you want ... and then work backwards to cherry-pick text.
proof: dobbs' witches (ffs)
I love CNN the lowest rated network in all of media..I'm a proud member of the mockingbird media cult 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Everyone who pays attention knew this how they were going to do things. Wait until you see the chaos unleashed when they reverse the Chevron case based on just they don't like that agency experts do what the law says and make rules. Every single federal regulation someone with the cash doesn't like is going to be challenged and without Chevron the circuit court judges are going to have to make rulings about the merits of hyper technical regulatory matters.
Actually this is the first time in a long while that they havent been making political rulings. Read the Constitution. It would do you good. Youve been abdicating your rights for so long you dont even know the rights youve lost.
This felt like a waste of an interview because Justice Breyer kept going in-depth and Blitzer could take that topic deeper, but then he kept moving on to "here's the next point on my predetermined list of things you should talk about" instead of engaging with what he was saying and letting it go where it was going to go. Even while Breyer is talking, I get the sense Blitzer is just thinking about how to go to his next question. The problem with this approach is that the audience is actually listening, not thinking about their own next hot topic, so the effect of a random shift to a new topic every 60 seconds is incoherent. That's my opinion.
✅
I agree. There is proof that you are correct - early in this video, Wolf asks a question and Justice Breyer starts answering it. While Mr. Breyer is speaking, Wolf briefly looks down at his notes on the blue paper on the desk and briefly shuffles them - while his guest is speaking - NOT listening, not making eye contact - just looking for his next question. Dang.
Well, he wants him to say what he knows he will not or cannot as he is still consulted. I think the salient point was made. Also, it's mainly to promote the book, not an in-depth interview.
Breyer spoke to Kirsten Walker on another network, and basically dodged in depth discussion of the majority of topics. He is very reluctant to speak on current topics, so it makes sense that Blitzer knows not to press further.
Absolutely, my thoughts to “Blister” was to shut up and listen whilst engaging with an actual wordsmith.
Brilliant man with insight and forethought.
He would be fascinating to have a one on one conversation with. If only some of the other justices on the court had half the honor and integrity this man bestows.
He is,indeed 🧐👍
Deception he's brilliant in that area
I love CNN the lowest rated network in all of media..I'm a proud member of the mockingbird media cult 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@MfBadassFeigning roaring laughter will not conceal your utter disdain for the greatness of America.
Masterclass wisdom by Stephen Breyer
Is master of deception
I love CNN the lowest rated network in all of media.. I'm a proud member of the mockingbird media cult 🤣
@@terryharker6726Is Russian bot.
*The only thing we’re "producing" is a Marxist banana republic replete with politically-motivated kangaroo courts.*
I could listen to Former Justice Breyer's Legal wisdom for hours. Such intelligent legal mind of reason, integrity, and legal elegance.
Not sure why he’s omitting the corruption of Thomas and Alito. That’s why the Supreme Court is disrespected.
The only ones respectful right now are the 4 women because they are the only ones that said they were not confortable with the decision of allowing criminals on the voting ballots.
Justice Elena Kagan was concerned about the ethical implications of receiving bagels and lox from her high school friends, over concerns she could be violating the court's ethics rules for accepting gifts.
Alito had colluded with Leonard Leo to "stack" the SCotUS. Clearance Thomas has obviously received gifts that he had no intention of even declaring.
he is as crooked as the ones on the court
The only corruption is the democratic party
We certainly have a SCOTUS that no one wants.
All 9.
It's the Supreme Rigged Court of the United States (SCROTUS)
@@unbreakable7633about 6 of them.
Trump living comfortably rent-free in the heads of the mockingbird media cult 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Why?Because they are holding on to our constitution and democracy by the skin of their teeth from the wolves in office right now
Miss this type of judge.
Leftist?
@@vallejoborncalihasbecomeal9022 the fox angertainment comment section was just asking about you, payaso. You think Donald would lift UN DEDO para TI O TU FAMILIA? JAJAJAJAJAJJAJAJAJJAAJ 🤡
@@vallejoborncalihasbecomeal9022 men?
Troll who just joined you tube?
@@curt0571 Breyer's a troll?
If Trump is not held accountable, the law of the land no longer applies to anyone.
Oh it will apply to poor & underserved people
@@judykinsman3258 That will be their choice.
All nine justices just ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says insurrectionists can hold federal office, when its text says the opposite, in clear and unambiguous terms.
Trump is going to scrap the Constitution anyways, if he gets back in office
Lil dude, ur so right. Look at shicko grubers statements on ww2, I found it really interesting looking at how similar it is to the Democrats.
Given his comment about a judge paying attention to the era, not the political temperature, would seem to support the idea of term limits for the Supreme Court. I wonder if he has any thoughts on that.
Listening to him makes me feel like I'm in class.
“🎉Because public opinion is one of the things that will lead people to follow the rule law”
Brilliant
Another stock market record today and the world's best economy, by far. Thank you President Biden!
Vote Blue!!!
The whole rotten gop must go
@@BB-nw3mj let’s not!
I love CNN the lowest rated network in all of media..I'm a proud member of the mockingbird media cult
What has he been convicted of? & would any of this be happening if he wasn’t running for president?
While we’re at it, why is the border wide open for anyone to come in? 10,000,000 at this point. Imagine if Trump did that. You would be livid. We know why they’re doing this.
Justice Breyer was one of my favorite SC Justices.
He was a douc*bag leftist!
Fan of legislating from the bench?
@@badluck5647 Like the current SC? Nope.
You had no clue who he was until the Dems pressured him to retire so they don't have another RBG on their hands
@@LeandroVelez7 Reading the constitution, and understanding Federalism is legislating from the bench?
Judges should always follow the rule of law without bias or political affiliation.
Exactly, no going with the "climate of the era"
Justice Breyer is exemplary. Thank you for your service. I want to wish you and your loved ones the best
Such a lovely man, one of my favorites at explaining things. Curious, fascinating mind. ❤❤❤
Hamilton was wrong. The concerns in 1787 about an imperial Supreme Court accountable to no one were completely on the mark. Appointments should have been for a defined term of years with no renewals.
10-15 years, I think. Long enough to outlast presidents, short enough not to be behind the times.
The court lost me at Citizen’s United.
Bush v. Gore was the moment when the modern SCOTUS lost its way.
I think Bryers opinions are more valuable to the public, then to protect the current justices. Stop the Stench of the Supreme Court.
Good interview with intelligent and wise words from Stephen Breyer. I do understand why he didn't want to say anything about the immunity case, but the delay in that really bleeps me off.
The way he describes textualism reminds me of classmates I’ve had who ask for help with homework and then look annoyed when you ask them have they read their textbook. Just reminds me of intellectual laziness and a lack of desire to do the rigorous work sometimes required to gain clarity. It feels like a cop out. But again this is just what I gain from how he described Scalia’s response of essentially: “Sounds like a lotta work and only people like you are willing to do it, so the merits (sorry for swearing) of your approach are irrelevant.”
It's similar to the fundamentalist (Protestant) vs. Catholic approaches to the reading of scripture.
I mean, on the one hand, the law is the law, and the words in law matter, BUT there's something to be said for a pragmatic argument that leans more on practicality+the inalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence. The court is at its best when it protects individual rights from government overreach, such as in the Obergefell, Brown, and Loving decisions. It's at its worst when it upholds the government removing rights, such as in the Dred Scott and Dobbs decisions.
@@wordforger What about the "right" of an insurrectionist to hold state or federal office?
I absolutely LOVE this interview because, having watched a few of Justice Breyer's interviews since he left the Court, THIS is the one where you feel like he's finally getting his footing as a former Justice. He's far more confident, learning to balance his role as a former Justice who understands the importance of being restrained and statesman-like in public commentary with the fact that he's now a private citizen who desperately wants to still teach and communicate with the people his past office touches day in and out.
Brilliant! So much respect for Stephen Breyer…
"climate of the era..." Breyer's my favorite justice because of these personal type interviews. He taught me a LOT about SCOTUS over the years. It's 2024 and I really miss those kinds of interviews. Why don't individual justices currently serving do interviews anymore? Hmm.
"Climate ofvl the era"
Sounds like "read the room"
A judges job isn't to do what everyone in the "era" would prefer.
@@Sarcasmarkus "separate but equal" was a compromise of the 18th century to avoid ripping the country apart. By 1955 American values had changed and the SCOTUS was demanding disintegration of public schools in the South. That's not reading a room.
Reform and expand the court
That is a very bad idea that kind of stupid thinking leads to only one person being in charge like Russia.
@@KurtLeroy-mx1xiExpand it with all Republican judges!
@@KurtLeroy-mx1xinot really considering the Supreme Court is supposed to have a justice for each circuit court of which there are 13.
@@SimplySketchyXbox That would be fine if it was half Republican and half democrat and stuck to protecting the constitution.
@@Matt-nv8je Nope it should always be 50/50
So True!!!
Breyer is a remarkable man. Level headed and shows what the SCOTUS used to be. His comment of Not having a rule of law resonated and hit home hard.
The politicization of decisions are just a piece of the problem; it's the blatant and rampant ethical lapses that are almost a daily occurrence that makes the public lose trust and respect for the court. Taking bribes, no accountability, nonexistent ethic code makes the justices believe they are above the law they SAY they uphold. We need court reform, ethic standards and term limits for the Supreme Court to earn the public's trust.
It's in shambles. Three of them are Trump picks and they rule in favour regardless . Thomas, Roberts are a stain on the constitution. You have a former President that praises Hitler in one breath and the other says he wants total immunity from any decision that he makes. A proper supreme court would not consider any of this.
The meaning of words is often fluid across time.
it is.
one (of MANY) examples: when my dad was born (1930), "terrific" meant terrible.
eg: "It was a terrific storm."
imagine saying now that "It was a terrific cat5 hurricane."
Bullshit!
Which is why originalism is correct.
@@beepboopbeep5456 ANYONE who reads a book older than 50 years needs to understand how words shifted, you child.
part of shakespeare actually: "I'm fat and scant of breath" doesn't mean overweight.
so tell us all: how is originalism different from Breyer?
@@op3129 The fact that words change meaning over time is why textual originalism is right, because what the words meant when they were written are what the meaning was. If we have a contract, the terms don't change with the language. Neither do laws. What Breyer is advocating is an assumption of popular will in lieu of elections and lawmaking which is actually driven by popular will. He is advocating for no law at all. It isn't complicated or controversial, except to the intellectually and morally bankrupt.
FORMER!!
NOT EX-Justice.........
Mr Blitzer, this is very good. You should bring in voices from the Commonwealth so many rich voices you can tap into. The US started off with Common Law norms but as a distinctive entity separate from Britain. We all benefit from the 'shady, leafy protection' from the scorching sun of 'codified law' which normally results in violent popularism (U.S. Independence, Haiti, France during the Revolution). Please explore this further.
Common law is ignored at your at your peril .
Every day, I'm reminded of my good judgement in not voting Republican.
FJB MAGA 🇺🇲
@@PedoPeterandcrackboy you misspelled FDT
What policies of Trump’s affected your life do horribly? & what policy of Biden’s has made your life so much better?
My aunt died from covid. So many died because of Trump.
@@TheRealBlueValhalla I’m sorry to hear that. I really am. How did Trump cause people to die though? He never told anyone to not get the vaccine?
I could listen to his stories all day.😊
This went nowhere.
Wolf Blitzer looks like he’s getting a lecture from his grand dad after he asked “what’s a textualist” and “does the president have absolute immunity?”
If you're going to ask questions you know he won't answer, ask him about the corruption.
Too bad there weren’t more judges on the SC like this with common sense, compassion, accountability.
It would be great if CNN or other folks interviewing the Justice would defer the interviews from their usual hosts to their legal experts so that the conversation could be with someone who had the experience to ask questions befitting the rare opportunity; these hosts are too much of generalists and are terrible at questioning Breyer.
What an awesome man Justice Breyer.
Identify those who wants the current SCOTUS. The federalist society, large corporations, the republican party.
The current SCOTUS exists bc powerful interests want it.
The judge speaks so eloquently and so much of wisdom
The Turtle turned SCOTUS into SCROTUS
I want it!
u get no men
idk wtf u sayin
Wondeful interview!
Such a good inspiration lovely man
Need term limits for checks and balances: 25 year term should be enough.
Wahhh...i don't like half this country, my team isn't winning, let me change the rules and flip the game board. Just pack the court with you judges while we're at it.
Fdt & ALL who support him!
Both DJT and Joe Biden.
Will never vote for Biden again. Never.
🙏🏿🇵🇸❤️
@@mananimal3644I’m not necessarily pro-Joe, but I am extremely anti-autocracy and 45 wants to be Hitler, so…
Trump living comfortably rent-free in the heads of the mockingbird media cult 🤣
What has he been convicted of? & would any of this be happening if he wasn’t running for president?
While we’re at it, why is the border wide open for anyone to come in? 10,000,000 at this point. Imagine if Trump did that. You would be livid. We know why they’re doing this.
@@PedoPeterandcrackboy it’s just sad lol they’re all going to be out of work once he is done with the political world. They have zero charisma, just orange man bad!
The "perfect crime"? Be born superrich, do everything in your life in broad daylight, hire the most ruthless lawyers - and if you are afraid of getting cought in the end: run for president?
The court doesn't "produce a constitution". There is a process for amending the constitution. If that is too burdensome, then amend the constitution to make the amendment process easier. If constitutionalism puts us in an intolerable straightjacket, then abandon constitutionaism. But the idea that we can have a constitution that is not actually a constitution is incoherent. Constitutions are a needed emendation to majority rule, but the rights of minorities that are exempt from majority tyranny have to be clearly stated in the constitution, otherwise judicial discretion can be put at the service of any group whatsoever. Woodrow Wilson thought constitutionalism was obsolete and said so. At least he had the honesty and clarity to state his conviction accurately, unlike the weasel words of people like Bryer who no longer believe in the concept but profess to want to keep a constitution. Translate what he says into English and you get: "I want courts that can override legislatures in any and all matters provided they rule the way I like."
Presidential system was devised for a farming community of 4 million people with a very simple life view. It does not work in a pluralistic country of millions.
Presidential systems have proved to create dictatorships.
You need direct ministerial responsibility. Break it down into electoral portfolios with STV vote: foreign affairs, justice, revenue, regulation, social welfare etc. Maybe with 2-3 elected for each portfolio. Then people can vote for policies instead of tribes. And representatives will have to work instead of grand-standing.
But that would give the power to the people. Our Representatives have worked hard to get where they are today, can't go messing up things now.
Sounds interesting. What country has this type of government?
@@KygrannyNone. All current forms of government were devised before the information age for societies with far simpler issues. That's why you see fascists being elected in Europe by people who don't necessarily want fascism but are forced to vote for a bucket of policies, and choose which is most important to them. It disempowers people.
In parliamentary democracies with MMP at leastt individuals can be voted out in electorates, governments appoint ministers responsible for ministries which are individually accountable can be and are voted out for unpopular policies or incompetence. (They don't dare keep corrupt MPs on their list, they are instantly fired on a whiff of bad faith.)
But even that's too unanswerable.
@@W_Binits the same existential issues, just more people.
@@Sarcasmarkus"same existential issues, just more people." YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR IGNORANCE - OR YOUR EMPLOYER'S STUPIDITY THINKING THAT EVERYONE ELSE ID SO STUPID.
It's the same argument theologians have. How can anyone believe that people in 1776 were able to articulate the needs of all future people? We have to interpret all this stuff. But it's not terribly surprising that a voting body of biblical literalists (the religious right/maga) would put a supreme court of constitutional literalists.
Well are you surprised. These are the same people telling you what Jebus thought 2000 years.
Fantastic news, thank you so much Wolfe and CNN. This is important. Hopefully, those who need to hear this key news, will. Best wishes from neighbours to the north 🇨🇦
Stephen Bryers rythm of speaking is so cool and interesting. Listen to him more. It’s so fascinating and kinda soothing
Thank Mosco Mitch.For most of this .Thank putin next then Trump then his Cult.
Putin WAITED until his BUDDY, Biden was in office before massing troops on the Ukraine border and invading. THANK BIDEN for a war that wouldn't have happened under Trump
No youre just an ignorant cultist who doesnt know any better. Im guessing you still call january 6th an "insurrection" right cultist?
Trump has ruined this country on a permanent basis. America will never be the same.
Thank the Democrats for still playing the same old game instead of recognizing the GOP aim to end democracy.🫤
@@KILLAWATTS804 uhhh sport...that was a narrative democrat brainwashed you with. Sit down.
Term limits. No free rides. We shouldn’t be burdened with people for their lifetime once they get in a position of power and no oversight.
Probably term limits were not necessary or thought of in the past because life expectancy was so much lower
term limits are in place cuz they wanted to keep the US constitution in focus from the day it was created, every time someone new is added that takes a little bit away from the original context and meaning of what the founding fathers created. @@phoque121
He was like : Go buy my new books, period.
There is no conversation to be had. It needs to be dissolved.
*_Everyone please note and share: to see all comments, click the "sort by" above the list and select "newest"._*
*_the default "Top" is not a "sort by". YT filters comments._* 🤐
(Please upvote this comment to keep it at the top so people can see it.)
all this
u good?
What do you expect when you create a right to lie.
You reap what you sow.
The sad part is you are poisoning the rest of the world.
Absolutely!!
Impressive and wise man
The constitution is just plain ignored these days.
Clarence Thomas has a white eye
feels like a movie by Jordan Peele...
And a black eye also .
He has an eye on a new luxury RV and some fancy trips that’s for sure.
*The only thing we’re "producing" is a Marxist banana republic replete with politically-motivated kangaroo courts.*
Clarence Thomas has been bought and paid for years ago
Makes me remember when there was more class in the SOTUS. Now we have beer guy
And bought and paid for bad faith actors.
What an expressive man. The gestures, the facial expression. I don't know how old he is, but when he is talking, he looks much younger.
Great interview
Wolf was trying to trick Mr. Breyer into answering questions...He's too smart for that Wolf.
Keep in mind,,,cnn=communist news network. They hate the constitution.
what didn't Breyer answer?
(he answered every question ... wtf is wrong with you?!?)
@@op3129He wouldn’t answer regarding the Supremes and Trump’s absolute immunity Defense.
Textualists my arse.
Pack the Court
Thomas didn't stop thinking about himself.
8:44 and THIS America!! is why we need Term Limits on the Supreme Court.. & Code of Ethics Reviews granting Congress the authority to force a justice to recuse from certain cases if necessary.. This was never intended to be Feudalism.. no one should have this much power.. even if they're respected judges with uncontested dockets
that's ridiculous - getting new Supreme Court justices every couple years would destroy the US constitution! you should know better
It was always intended to be feudalism.
@@Krispy1011 How so.. There's a lot I need to learn about this branch of Government so feel free to teach if you may?
The Supreme Court justices are selected for life so they can keep the intent of the US Constitution that the creators intended, the farther away you get from the first blood the more you loose. Getting new Supreme Court justices every couple years would certainly remove a lot of the intent of the US Constitution that its creators so desired. Its the same as when people come to the US and do not honor the flag, US laws, have little regard for anything that the US stands for and the US is then on a downward spiral from its original intent for freedoms and democracy! @@SecretEyeSpot
Stand up America. Everything that you hold dear is at stake.
Greetings from all your friends and one of your most reliable allies since WW2 down in Australia.
🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸
MAGA 🇺🇲 FJB
FJB MAGA 🇺🇲
@@NoQuarterfordems
Kyiv in 3 days Katsap bot.
@@PedoPeter66646
So, how is the whole Kyiv in 3 days plan going for you on day 762 of Putin's disastrous 10 day 'Special Military Operation'?
Thank you Australia😊
Good man.
Excellent Judge.
Good man.
There are two other famous men in their 80s that I wish had the humility to step aside.
To save people time: it's a retired judge pushing a book.
Keep spinnin it CNN - but it aint working
Dear Justice I live in Scotland and I wish SCOTUS had your moral decency, but I’m afraid 😟 it’s wishful thinking. Have Happy retirement 😢
Respect
This guy is 86? Wow.
Just proving that age is a number and we have to assess people individually.
Vote Blue and have the National Guard on every street in America trying to keep the crime down!
Crime across the country is down with the Dems in charge. Facts.
@@omnipotentone5628down compared to what?
Crime is still way higher than pre-pandemic levels.
@@runrebelscum855At least learn english when you come here
@@runrebelscum855It is the highest it's ever been joe biden's new america lawless
I'm reminded every day when I go shopping, pay bills, buy gas, buy food, clothing, etc who I am voting for - its Donald Trump, He had America and the world on a good roll - no super high inflation, crime rates were down, no wars and no chaos and turmoil - I'm voting for Donald Trump!
I'm voting for Joseph Biden - because everything you said is such an obvious lie that it can only be taken as an insult!
@@JasonC-ic3qd these are facts whether you want to admit it or not.
go ahead and vote for mush for brains - make sure you take the NYC subway next time you visit NYC - hahahhah@@JasonC-ic3qd
Yo Krispy put the doobie down.
@@ChipDiamond102 your alternate facts are not facts. facts are facts, whether you have the ability to cope or not.
Agreed, sir.
Love wisdom ❤
Thank you for a great interview
In my humble opinion, SCOTUS is no longer functional and serve the justice and need to put the HOUSE in order to repair SCOTUS or otherwise to be put in the museum for historical record for the good things they have served in the past.
Breyer is a fine one to speak, given that his stepping down was, at least in part, responsible for the makeup of this current court 😡
He was 83 at the time.
Uhh he was pressured to resign so that Biden could appoint a liberal justice. Which he did.
Look at the wisdom of this judge. I wish that current SCOTUS justices were honorable as he is.
Read his book and learn.
May we have all future Justices as good as the Honorable Justice Stephen Breyer.
Wolf Blizter thanks for your honesty you is the only honest decent truthful respectful journalist at CNN we rely on you for honesty and you are most certainly doing that for that we thank you. God bless you. Keep the little that left of honest journalism
I don't always agree with Breyer's decision's, but I sure as hell respect the man a lot.
Pleasant man.
He basically answered the big question.....
Thomas Paine said it should be reviewed every seven years. When a high functioning person like Mr Paine tells you what to do and you choose not to then history frowns.
Ease burdens; unalterable, release them. Serenity thrives in accepting the immutable.
For some reason Justice Breyer seems for me to bring to mind Ryan Gilbey’s obituary comment in The Guardian about the character and temperament of perennial master journeyman actor Tom Wilkinson, that he “possessed many of the qualities of a favourite raincoat: he was unflashy, steadfast and could usually be relied upon when conditions were unfavourable.”
I deeply admire low-key competence. To me Justice Breyer presents it clearly.
Breyer and Roberts could have joined in a better Dobbs decision, but Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas weren't going to allow that. The main issue in Dobbs was whether a 15 week limit was constitutional, not whether states should be allowed to enact complete bans on abortion.