THINKING, YEAH, IT'S A GREAT IDEA. BUT THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IT. >> LET ME BRING YOU THE GUN ISSUE. YOU WRITE IN YOUR BOOK, YOU TAKE ISSUE WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT. SECOND AMENDMENT, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. THEY WERE MALICIOUS. YOU TALK ABOUT THE FACT THERE ARE MORE GUNS IN AMERICA THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY. MORE GUNS THAN PEOPLE. 400 MILLION GUNS. YOU TALK ABOUT, AND WE JUST HAD THE 25th ANNIVERSARY OF COLUMBINE. YOU TALK ABOUT THE PRACTICAL REALITY, WHERE FIVE JUSTICES ARGUABLY NOW VERSUS FOUR OR MAYBE SIX TO THREE ARE LOOKING AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN A LITERAL TEXTURAL WAY AND NOT THE NEED BY LOCAL, FEDERAL, AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE GUNS TO PROTECT PEOPLE'S LIVES, CHILDREN ARE DOING DUCK AND COVER NOW FOR GUNS. >> I DIDN'T TAKE ISSUE WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT. I TOOK ISSUE WITH THE MAJORITY'S INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. BUT I THOUGHT THE SECOND AMENDMENT SHOWED THAT JUST WHAT YOU SAID. IT'S ABOUT THE MILITIAS. NOT ABOUT KEEPING A GUN UNDER YOUR PILLOW. NOW YOU'RE GETTING TO THE POINT OF THIS BOOK. THE POINT OF THIS BOOK IS THIS, THAT WE HAVE HAD QUITE A LONG TIME WHERE MOST JUDGES WHOM I ADMIRE VERY MUCH, HOLMES, BRANDEIS, CARDOZA -- >> GOLDBERG. >> YEAH, GOLDBERG TOO, ABSOLUTELY GOLDBERG. >> I READ THE BOOK. >> GOOD. THAT'S VERY GOOD. BUT THEY HAVE A WAY. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, WHEN WE GET THESE WORDS, THESE WORDS, THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THE RIGHT TO CARRY AND BEAR ARMS. THOSE WORDS ARE PRETTY ABSTRACT. SO HOW DO WE INTERPRET THEM? WE READ THEM, YOU READ THEM. AND IF THE WORD IN A STATUTE IS CARROT, I TELL YOU A SECRET, THAT DOESN'T MEAN FISH. ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU GO BEYOND THAT. AND YOU LOOK AT THE PURPOSES. AND YOU LOOK AT THE CONSEQUENCES, AND YOU LOOK AT THE VALUES. ALL OF THOSE THINGS IN DIFFERENT CASES ARE RELEVANT, BUT THERE IS THIS NEW, NEW THING COMING ALONG. I CALL IT A TIDAL WAVE. THE TIDAL WAVE IS CALLED TEXTUALISM. ORIGINALISM. WHAT IS SAYS IS WE HAVE A GREAT NEW METHOD. A GREAT NEW METHOD TO DO THAT JUDGE'S JOB. WE SAY YOU DO IS JUST READ. READ WHAT IT SAYS AND FOLLOW WHAT THE REASONABLE OR ORDINARY PERSON WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THOSE WORDS MEANT AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN. >> AND THAT'S WHAT YOU OBJECT TO. JUSTICE HOLMES TALKED ABOUT NOT SHOUTING FIRE IN A CROWDED ROOM, WHERE FACING PROTESTS EVERYWHERE, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AN ISSUE. THE COURT IS RELEVANT TO EVERYTHING HAPPENING IN OUR LIVES TODAY. YOU LOVE THIS COURT. YOU LOVE YOUR FRIENDS ON THE COURT. THOSE THAT YOU DISAGREED WITH, SCALIA, I KNOW HOW MUCH YOU LOVED ALL OF THEM. WHY DID YOU RETIRE? >> WHY DID I RETIRE? I'LL TELL YOU A TERRIBLE THING. IT'S CALLED THE HUMAN CONDITION. AND WHEN YOU GET TO BE ABOUT 83 AND I'M ALMOST 84 YEARS OLD OR WHATEVER IT IS, YOU BEGIN TO THINK IT'S TIME FOR A YOUNGER PERSON TO HAVE THAT CHANCE. IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON. AND IT'S TIME TO MAINTAIN THE INSTITUTION, BUT THE INSTITUTION CAN BE MAINTAINED WITHOUT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON ON IT, NAMELY ME. SO THERE WE ARE. IT'S A TOUGH DECISION. AND IT'S A PERSONAL DECISION. AND I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE RIGHT TIME. I MEAN, I'M NOT GOING TO BE THERE UNTIL I'M 150. >> THANKFULLY YOU'RE STILL TEACHING STUDENTS AT HARVARD LAW, WRITING BOOKS LIKE THIS BOOK, AND I HAVE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WHO WOULD SAY IT'S TIME FOR POLITICAL CANDIDATES TO RETIRE WHEN THEY'RE IN THEIR 80s, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER SUBJECT. MR. JUSTICE BREYER, THANK YOU SO MUCH. OF COURSE, WE HAVE
