MY NEXT GUEST HAS BEEN ON THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT FOR OVER 20 YEARS. PLEASE WELCOME JUSTICE STEPHEN
BREYER! (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
♪ (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
♪ >> Stephen: THANKS FOR BEING
HERE. YOU'RE REALLY CLASSING UP THE
JOINT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Stephen: MAKES ME FEEL VERY
IMPORTANT TO HAVE YOU HERE BECAUSE, USUALLY, WHEN YOU'RE
SOMEPLACE, SOMETHING BIG IS BEING DECIDED, RIGHT? >> SOMETIMES. >> Stephen: YES. (LAUGHTER)
SO WHAT'S IT LIKE TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? IS IT A GOOD JOB? >> THE BIGGEST BENEFIT,
PARTICULARLY AS YOU GET OLDER, IS YOU TAKE EVERY MINUTE OF IT
VERY SERIOUSLY, AND IT CALLS FOR YOU TO PUT FORTH YOUR BEST EVERY
SINGLE MINUTE. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
>> Stephen: LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT FOR
EVERYONE? (LAUGHTER)
THAT'S JOB SECURITY! >> THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. IT MAKES ME THINK OF MY FATHER,
BECAUSE MY FATHER'S SACRED ADVICE TO ME --
>> Stephen: YES? -- STAY ON THE PAYROLL. (LAUGHTER)
>> Stephen: NEVER QUIT? NO. >> Stephen: NEVER QUIT ANY
JOB. THAT'S GOOD ADVICE. NOW, DO YOU EVER HAVE MOMENTS OF
DOUBT, SIR? YOU GET UP IN THE MORNING,
YOU'RE ABOUT TO DECIDE SOME OF THE BIG CASES AND YOU'RE SHAVING
AND YOU GO, WHY ME? WHY DO I GET TO BE ONE OF THE
NINE PEOPLE TO MAKE THE CALL HERE? >> THE ANSWER TO THAT IS OF
COURSE YOU DO. OF COURSE, YOU DO. THE FIRST THREE TO FIVE YEARS ON
THE COURT, YOU MAY LOOK VERY CONFIDENT, BUT THAT ISN'T HOW
YOU'RE FEELING. DAVID SOUDER TOLD ME THAT. IT TAKES A PERIOD OF TIME. >> Stephen: IS THERE A BANKING
MACHINE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT? >> IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT --
>> Stephen: I'M THINKING ABOUT IT NOW. >> AS A JUNIOR JUSTICE WHEN
WE'RE SITTING IN OUR CONFERENCE ROOM, BY OURSELVES, WE DISCUSS
THE CASES ALONE, AND IT'S THE JOB OF THE JUNIOR JUSTICE, WHICH
I WAS FOR 11 YEARS, IN CASE SOMEONE KNOCKS ON THE DOOR, I
OPEN IT. (LAUGHTER)
>> Stephen: YEAH, SO YOU'RE LIKE A PLEDGE. >> IN A SENSE. THERE MIGHT BE A PAPER. THERE MIGHT BE SOMETIMES THERE
WAS COFFEE, AND ACTUALLY THERE WAS QUITE A GOOD REMARK, SOMEONE
BROUGHT A JUSTICE COFFEE AND I SAID --
>> Stephen: HE SAID -- HE SAID, YOU HAVE BEEN DOING
THIS FOR SOME TIME AND I SAID, YES, I'VE GOTTEN VERY GOOD AT
IT. HE SAID, I'M NOT SURE. >> Stephen: A.C., THAT'S YOU,
LET'S GO! (LAUGHTER)
YOU HAVE A NEW BOOK CALLED "THE COURT AND THE WORLD," AMERICAN
LAW AND THE NEW GLOBAL REALITY. >> YES. >> Stephen: THE SUPREME COURT
IS ABOUT THE LAST PLACE IN AMERICA WHERE I COULDN'T BRING
MY CAMERA CREW IN TO SHOOT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING, TO GET
A VIDEO OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING. WHY CAN'T WE WATCH YOU? IF THE SUPREME COURT REPEATEDLY
RULES WE CAN BE WATCHED BY THE GOVERNMENT? >> AND THERE ARE VERY GOOD
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> Reporter: I JUST MADE A
VERY GOOD ONE. IF YOU HAD CAMERAS IN THE
COURTROOM, YOU COULD JUST PUT THE BOOK ON THE EDGE OF YOUR
DESK, AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE RIGHT NOW. >> RIGHT THERE, IN JUST WHAT YOU
SAID, YOU'VE GIVEN PART OF THE ANSWER. YOU SEE? I'M IN A JOB WHERE WE WEAR BLACK
ROBES IN PART BECAUSE WE'RE SPEAKING FOR THE LAW. EVERYBODY KNOWS WE'RE HUMAN
BEINGS -- >> Stephen: AND PART TO MAKE
YOU SPOOK J. >> THAT'S A THOUGHT. BUT THE COUNTRY DOESN'T WANT TO
KNOW THE CONSTITUTION ACCORDING TO BREYER OR O'CONNOR. THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE
ANSWER TO THIS THING IS. THAT'S TRUE OF THE PROCESS. IF YOU HAD CAMERAS RIGHT THERE
IN THE PROCESS OF ORAL ARGUMENT, IF YOU HAD THAT, WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE REACTION EXACTLY WOULD BE AMONG THE LAWYERS AND OTHERS. THE ORAL ARGUMENT IS ABOUT 5% OF
THE BASIS FOR DECIDING A CASE. IT'S ALMOST ALL IN WRITING. THE TOUGHEST PART ABOUT THIS
QUESTION YOU POSED IS THIS -- WHEN I'M DECIDING A CASE, I'M
DECIDING IT FOR 315 MILLION PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN THAT
COURTROOM. THE RULE OF LAW, THE RULE OF
INTERPRETATION, IT APPLIES TO EVERYBODY. BUT HUMAN BEINGS CORRECTLY AND
DECENTLY RELATE TO PEOPLE THEY SEE, AND THEY'LL SEE TWO
LAWYERS, AND THEY'LL SEE TWO CLIENTS. WILL THEY UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE
STORY? WILL THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE
DOING? WILL THERE BE DISTORTION? NOW, THAT'S THE ARGUMENT AGAINST
YOU. THE ARGUMENT FOR YOU IS IT WOULD
BE A FABULOUS EDUCATIONAL PROCESS. >> Stephen: AND PRETTY
ENTERTAINING SOMETIMES, TOO. >> NO. (LAUGHTER)
>> Stephen: I DISAGREE. BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT DISAGREEING
FOR A SECOND. YOU GO TO WORK EVERY DAY AND
MANAGE TO GET YOUR JOB DONE WITH A GROUP OF NINE PEOPLE, HALF OF
WHOM WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU VEHEMENTLY ON A HOST OF
DIFFERENT ISSUES. HOW COME YOU GUYS MANAGE TO KEEP
DOING YOUR JOB AND THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T? >> WHEN WE'RE SITTING AROUND
THAT TABLE -- >> Stephen: YEAH? (APPLAUSE)
>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT LEAVE THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF
IT, BUT I WILL SAY WHEN WE'RE SITTING AROUND THE TABLE, THE
NINE OF US DISCUSSING, I HAVE BEEN THERE OVER 20 YEARS, 21, I
HAVE NEVER HEARD A VOICE RAISED IN ANGER. I HAVE NEVER HEARD ONE MEMBER OF
OUR COURT SAY SOMETHING INSULTING ABOUT ANOTHER, NOT
EVEN AS A JOKE. OF COURSE, WE DISAGREE. WE DISAGREE ABOUT HALF THE TIME. WE'RE UNANIMOUS ABOUT HALF THE
TIME. AND WE'RE 5-4, NOT ALWAYS THE
SAME, AND WE'RE 20% OR SO, AND WE FEEL IT QUITE STRONGLY, BUT
THE DISCUSSION IS PROFESSIONAL, IT IS SERIOUS, AND IT IS NOT
PERSONAL, AND WE ARE GOOD FRIENDS DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE
AGREE SOME OF THE TIME AND WE DISAGREE OTHERS OF THE TIME. >> Stephen: YOU'RE YELLING AT
ME RIGHT NOW. YOU'RE YELLING AT ME RIGHT NOW. (LAUGHTER)
JUSTICE BREYER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME! "THE COURT AND THE WORLD"! THANK YOU, SIR!
Justice Breyer really comes across as a class act. His last comment about professionalism in their discussions was quite profound.
It made me feel extremely uneasy every time Stephen interrupted Justice Breyer.
This is a video.
marylandmax is banned for 7 days
His style of speech reminds me of Mr. Rogers; I wish he would do more videos.