Justice Breyer: You Don’t Want A Judge To Be Influenced By Popular Opinion When Judging A Case 

I think he might be overly optimistic about the good faith of some of his colleagues

He has a very idealistic view of the court. To say politics doesn’t influence their decisions is just naive.

It’s not his experience, because SCOTUS wasn’t like this when he was on the court. SCOTUS has changed especially because of Trump and the Federalist Society.

The new slate of justices do not view the court in this way. Breyer is trying to preserve a respect for the bench that has long since left the building and been stomped on the curb.

I think even the average person can understand that the Court is supposed to make fair and impartial judgment independent of the public opinion. But when you have a group of people / organizations that already have not just a finger, but a whole hand and foot on the scale, the people already know it's not going to be fair and impartial. Effective or not, the public outrage is an attempt at rebalancing.

When Alito threw out 50 years of women’s rights based on 13th century legal reasoning, I don’t think he was arguing the law or the Constitution. He started with his religious beliefs and worked backward from those to find a justification for the ruling he wanted to issue.

The discrepancy. Regardless if the judges would serve with no political agenda or not, 75% of the Americans not believing in it is a huge problem. That should worry anyone,..

It appears this gentleman's book is about how SCOTUS should be, not what it is.

Would’ve loved if you asked him about the blatant corruption of 2 judges

If the whole Court were what he says, they should be a lot quicker with telling trump "NO!!"

By their bribes, shall you know them.

Justices are not chosen by people with integrity. So why would we expect them to have integrity?

I'd be happy with judges who understand they are supposed to make decisions that are best for the country, and not best for their bank accounts. Not as many of them around as you'd hope, I hear.

There are 4 judges who dont adhere to his way of thinking.

Different court now. Rose tinted glasses me thinks.

The guy’s utterly out of touch: his ‘assurances’ make me even worried for USA’s democracy

if politics has nothing to do with it, explain how cases with 50+ years of precedent have been overturned with the aid of the new justices? Roe, Chevron, and coming up: Obergerfeld, Brown v Board, and the Kasmerick abortion of a case...

"The climate of the era"? C'mon, Judge, does that mean anything right now? The climate of THIS era is pretty appalling, and not something that many of us want to see codified in law.

Okay, but Clarence Thomas has egregiously taken advantage of his position. His focus is skewed. They all are.

Breyer's book sounds like a defense of HIS method. However, IMHO a handful of the present Supreme Court justices are definitively NOT choosing to use similar methods. And their motivations do not seem as defensible as Breyer's may be.

He’s in complete denial!

He gives his colleagues too much credit

Distressingly vague on important questions.

Im a little disappointed that Steven didn't bring up a question about recusal and huge gifts to justices in a serious way--- knowing that the former judge would've dodged it cowardly.

The current judges I don't believe stick to a way of interpreting the constitution and law as Breyer suggests. But they do adhere to their own personal biases and who provides them yacht vacations.

Yes I do. The court is political now. We need a higher level of courts. We need term limits at the supreme court. They pick and choose which cases to hear. They interpret the Constitution according to their own beliefs. Some take money from moguls to get them favors in court rulings and we can't get rid of them unless they choose to step down.

Sorry, the former Judge is a coward who only wants to promote his book.

Breyer seems very wonderful on a personal level, funny and charismatic, but I must say I am a bit disappointed in his answers. There’s much on stake now these times. I would have loved to hear some actual stands on things,..

kinda skipped over that whole corruption bit in the scotus

He's assuming the new judges are equally qualified.

I really like it when Stephen has on guests of substance rather than always entertainment folks plugging their latest projects.

Judge Clarence Thomas just ruled BREYER is out of order unless he ponies up a nice two week vacation for CLARENCE and his malignant tumor GINNIE-BABE on St. Barts in the Caribbean.

Judges using case from a time before our country from a country we seperated from to take away our freedom can't be taken seriously.

He should’ve asked about the corruption of the court, Thomas being the most egregious example, from his Insurrectionist wife, to his amassing over $70 million from a government salary. He wouldn’t answer it, but the question should’ve been asked

5:50 "And you'd better do that job well and like it." OR WHAT? Nothing happens to them if they don't do the job well! There's no accountability for them. There are no consequences for their less ethical actions. Any rules put in place for judges conveniently don't apply to the Supreme Court. An honor system doesn't work if the people in it have no honor.

*I'm 100% certain that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would **_NEVER_** fall under corrupt influence!* ( _that's sarcasm for those who don't recognise it_ ).

Well done Mr. Colbert! … Total professionalism and Justice right in your face and yet you ask hard questions respectfully. Well done sir!

He's got a point, but I still think Congress should pass a law setting term limits for SCOTUS Justices. And for Congress as well, but that's a different story.

"I'm not here to comment on matters of law, I'm just here to publicize my book."

I am curious as to what his take is on the influence of the Federalist Society on the court and the impacts that influence is having.

what's more useless than one supreme court justice? 9 supreme court justices.

How about our justices who are influenced by our darkest foreign adversary ?

I don’t know if this man ever met Thomas Clarence.

level the playing field : PACK THE FRIKKIN COURT ASAP !

Imagine what a president can do to the people who don't vote for them! Immunity is bogus

Hoping achieves nothing. Breyer is living in the past. SCOTUS will never be "judged" fair and impartial by the American public, ever again. Their rulings in HELLER & Citizens United ensured that.

Has this guy ever heard the expression "cognitive bias"?

Oh, sorry, that assumes judges with integrity. It's proven that we have judges who have been purchased, and who have complete disdain for women

It USED to be about how they adjudicated. Now it's all about getting money, favors and party lines. This guy no doubt was a good justice in a different court, but this isn't scotus anyone

What about the judges who use text when convenient and background and precedent when it supports their world view? And what about those taken care of by billionaires?

Colbert may be a comedian, but he is also very knowledgeable and intelligently articulate.

Judges and Justices who are appointed through political channels are more likely to filter “their” laws and interpretations of the US Constitution in terms of biased perceptions to render skewed judgments.

He didn’t answer the question. He is like a professor quoting the medical text and not seeing humanity. The court as it is today, with 3 judges who shouldn’t be there, is political. If not why couldn’t he address that?

NOTHING ABOUT CORRUPTION?! REALLY?!!!

I think Thomas and Alito have skewered impartiality and have brought politics into their decisions

But thats NOT what has been happening in the current SCOTUS.

So the court recently had to change to undo 14th amendment section protections? I mean, they basically undid a part of the Constitution!

I do not have confidence in our supreme deep dish Court anymore.

Trump should be held accountable

Mr. Justice Breyer, your first answer was as confusing as some of the SCOTUS rulings.

This guy has his head in the sand. Lawyers everywhere are increasingly shocked at the courts behavior and bizarre logic in rulings. It may not have been like that years ago but it definitely is now.

Maybe that's what it use to be like, but is he paying attention to what is going on now?

“We’ll be right back…with Justice Thomas!” 🤣🤣🤣

THIS justice needs his butt glued to the chair while he watches Senator Sheldon Whitehouse expose THE SCHEME on RU-vid video, step-by-step, with graphics, at a high school education level.

In theory, judges are supposed to be impartial. What happens when they're not? Also, by saying he values pragmatism over textualism, that is staking out a position, is it not? That is a political position. Therefore judges are politicians in robes.

The only SCJ smart enough to retire.

Thomas is influenced by RVs.

And when they don't do the job well?

His retirement let the scotus go over the edge.

Justice Breyer, Thank you.

Soooo, he's just here to hawk his book, not to answer any substantial questions. Very disappointing.

That used to be true. It isn't anymore.

Right on Judge Breyer👍👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

States rights are not only for southern states

Justice Breyer desperately wants to believe that the Court doesn't deserve to lose the confidence and respect of the American people, but it does. We're not lawyers, but we're also not stupid. We can see the Senate confirmation hearings where nominees perjure themselves to gain a lifetime appointment, then immediately set to work making The Handmaid's Tale a nightmare reality. We can see the Court _explicitly state_ that an opinion doesn't fit with established precedent and shouldn't be considered in future cases. *_How,_* Justice Breyer, can that be the product of a difference of legal interpretation? They didn't interpret what came before and they want no interpretation to occur after them! We're not lawyers, but we're not stupid. These draconian rulings are obviously not a product of interpretation; SCOTUS knew the ruling they wanted, couldn't make a plausible claim to reach it legitimately, so they flat-out say "this is a one-off, don't scrutinize it, thanks." I mean, for fuck's sake, the Dobbs decision cites pre-scientific nonsense from before the United States was even founded as a country. There is absolutely no legitimate, sincere method of legal interpretation that justifies such an ass-pull. Again, not lawyers; not stupid. It's honestly *so offensive* for Breyer to tell people "no no, don't believe what you're seeing and hearing, SCOTUS is a healthy, august legal body experiencing a lively difference of legal opinion!" The fuck outta here.

Boy did Colbert ever tiptoe around asking Judge Breyer any hard questions!

Frontline has a great Dr documentary on the supreme Court called supreme revenge. Highly recommend

I find it hard to believe that Justice Beer deserves the amount of good faith being given to him.

So why does Clarence get to complain, and take money, he needs to be rousted out now!

Whew! What a relief! Here i was all worried he'd refuse to say something substantive or unequivocal.

I understand why he was pressured to step down from SCOTUS, but damn, we lost a most profound voice on that Supreme Court without him. Man is spoken like a learned grandfatherly scholar of legend

Yeah bullchit, its a political court. Well about 5 of the justices anyway.

Great guests, thank you so much.

Illegitimate court

I love that Colbert Really wants to Understand the way judges decide how to judge. He Cares. And I'll bet he reads Breyers book.

Too many people have already decided. I’m doubtful that his book will succeed in changing enough minds.

Can he weigh in on the Heritage Foundation?

The idea that Alito and Thomas aren't motivated by their own politics is laughable

So glad this book was written.

I'd much rather have judges be influenced by popular opinion than by who can afford to buy them the most stuff.

He avoided all the main questions.

Our Supreme Court ! The best court MONEY CAN BUY ! ! !

Hey Breyer, thanks for Citizens United, that worked out great!

Great follow up question.

I love how he answers each question with what sounds like a prepared speech designed to sell his book... :)

No surprise, he defends their bad decisions.

Steven, I wish you had asked him whether you think a justice should recuse himself if his wife is working with someone before the court or if he had received a gift over $25 if he should be a sitting judge before that person? I know your job is to be funny but, in addition, you really do help shed light on our world through humor. Was it Will Rogers who was that political humorist? You sort of remind me of him. Thanks for being funny and thanks for not dying from your appendix.

Textualism is not prescribed in, or by, the Constitution. Textualism is, by it's most fervent acolytes own definitions, unconstitutional.

Can you please send the book to judge Canon

Now this is a guest i would happily invite to my favourite coffee-shop and spend the day conversing on ALL sorts of subjects. I don't have the same confidence in the probity of the current Trump-influenced Justices, but I am confident that, given enough time, a majority of the Court will find the appropriate balance between LAW and political affiliation once again.hank You Justice Breyer and Stephen for an intelligent discussion of The LAW!