( APPLAUSE )
WELCOME BACK FOLKS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
>> MY GUEST TONIGHT HAS SERVED ON THE SUPREME COURT FOR 27
YEARS, PLEASE WELCOME BACK TO THE "LATE SHOW, JUSTICE STEPHEN
BREYER.
( APPLAUSE )
>> NICE TO BE HERE.
>> IT HAS BEEN SIX YEARS, JUST ABOUT SIX YEARS, EXACTLY, SINCE
YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE SHOW.
HOW ARE YOU BEEN?
>> I'VE BEEN FINE.
>> I LOVE HAVING A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ON.
IT FEELS LIKE I'M DOING THE JACK PAR SHOW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
1961 OR SOMETHING.
WE DON'T GET TO SEE YOU NORMALLY DOING YOUR JOB, BECAUSE THERE
ARE NO CAMERAS INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?
I KNOW THAT THE RULES AGAINST IT, BUT WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO THE
IDEA OF CAMERAS IN THE COURT?
>> AT THE MOMENT, I DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT, AND THE TRUTH
OF THE MATTER-- >> I'M ASKING YOU TO THINK ABOUT
IT.
>> WE DON'T KNOW.
>> I'M ASKING YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT.
YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT.
IT'S MY SHOW.
>> OKAY.
>> COURT IS IN SESSION, ALL RISE, MR. JUSTICE!
WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW?
>> BECAUSE IMMEDIATELY THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE MAJORITY IN
FAVOR UPON IT.
AND THE PROBLEM IS THIS: ON THE ONE HAND, PEOPLE WOULD SEE IT'S
A VERY SERIOUS, VERY SERIOUS INSTITUTION.
DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, PEOPLE ARE GRAPPLING WITH THESE QUESTIONS.
THAT WOULD BE A MAJOR PLUS FOR THE UNITED STATES, I THINK, IF
WE COULD BE SEEN.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WE DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT TO WHICH PEOPLE WOULD
BECOME TOO SELF-CENTERED, THE LAWYERS OR THE JUDGES, AND BE
TOO WORRIED ABOUT HOW THEY LOOK ON TELEVISION.
>> WHAT IF I GOT YOU A STYLIST?
WHAT IF I GOT ALL OF YOU, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE WORK, A LITTLE
FRESHEN UP LIKE THAT, AND A REALLY NICE ROBE OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT.
IS THAT THE WORRY?
>> THAT'S EXACTLY PART OF WHAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT.
( LAUGHTER ).
>> ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT GUYS LIKE ME MAKING FUN OF THE
FOOTAGE THAT WE SEE ON A DAILY BASIS?
>> WELL, YOU WOULDN'T.
>> NO, OBVIOUSLY NOT, NO >> I WOULD NEVER MAKE A JOKE
ABOUT-- ON A MILDLY SERIOUS TACK HERE, WHAT ABOUT IN FEDERAL
COURT?
BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE ATTACKS, THE ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL ON
JANUARY 6.
WOULDN'T IT BE GOOD TO BE ABLE TO SEE THESE SERIOUS CHARGES OF
VIOLENCE, SEDITION, REBELLION, THAT ARE BEING CHARGED AGAINST
THESE PEOPLE IN FEDERAL COURT SO WE CAN SEE THE JUSTICE BEING
DONE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED THIS MOST HORRIBLE DAY?
>> THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE THEM.
WHAT WE REALLY DON'T KNOW-- AND IT'S UNKNOWN IN OUR COURT,
ACTUALLY-- IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH-- WELL, LET ME PUT IT THIS
WAY.
WHEN I WRITE AN OPINION, OR MY COLLEAGUES DO, IT ISN'T FOR THE
PEOPLE INDEPENDENT COURTROOM ENTIRELY.
IT'S FOR 330 MILLION PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T THERE.
AND HUMAN BEINGS, AS YOU WELL KNOW, LIKE TO FOCUS ON SOMEBODY
THEY SEE.
AND THERE'S THE GOOD ONE, AND THERE'S THE BAD ONE.
WE DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT THAT WOULD GET ACROSS IT ISN'T FOR
THESE TWO PEOPLE SO MUCH AS IT IS FOR THE 330 MILLION WHO
AREN'T THERE.
SO THERE ARE WORRIES.
THERE ARE WORRIES.
>> BIG NEWS IS THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO BLOCK THE TEXAS
ABORTION BAN LAW, EVEN BEFORE THEY RULED ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF IT.
NOT TO PUT SOME SORT OF HOLD ON THE LAW.
YOU SAID ON NPR, THAT DECISION BY THE COURT WAS VERY, VERY,
VERY WRONG.
WHY ONLY THREE VERIES?
( APPLAUSE )
WHY SUCH CONSTRAINT?
>> YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH?
>> YES?
>> YOU MISSED ONE.
>> YOU DID FOUR VARIES?
OKAY, I'LL TALK TO OUR RESEARCH DEPARTMENT.
>> ONE WAS SORT OF QUIET PUTTING ASIDE OF THE TACIT
ENDORMS OF OVERTURNING "ROE" HAVE YOU SEEN CITIZENS BEING
DEPUTIZED AS THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE IT, WHICH IS HAPPENING
IN TEXAS.
>> TEXAS YOU KNOW USED TO HAVE POSSES.
AND IF YOU HAVE SEEN WESTERN MOVIES, AS YOU HAVE, YOU WILL
KNOW ANY 10 PEOPLE CAN GET TOGETHER, AND THEY CAN IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BE A POSSE THAT GOES OUT AND CAPTURES THE
OUTLAWS.
WELL, YOU SCHEDULED ME FOR AN EXAMPLE.
>> IS THAT THE SAME EXAMPLE, MR. JUSTICE.
BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ARE BEING DEPUTIZED TO BE PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT, ESSENTIALLY, TO BE GOVERNMENT AGENTS.
WHEREAS THESE PEOPLE ARE STAYING CITIZENS, WHICH IS NOW THE TEXAS
LAWMAKERS ARE TRYING TO DO AN END RUN AROUND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
ISN'T THAT A DIFFERENT SITUATION?
>> YES.
( APPLAUSE ) ( CHEERING )
>> EXCUSE ME.
CHECKMATE!
SO I'M SORRY.
I INTERRUPTED YOU CONGRATULATING ME FOR BEING RIGHT.
GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
( LAUGHTER )
CAN THINK OF, OTHER THAN THE POSSE, WHICH ISN'T THE ACTUAL
EXAMPLE?
>> WELL-- >> BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST
SHOCKING THINGS ABOUT IT TO ME, BECAUSE IT IS SO FLAGRANTLY AN
ATTEMPT TO DO AN END RUN AROUND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
>> THE TRUTH IS IN THAT MATTER, WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE US, IT WAS
A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
WE DIDN'T GET TO THE MERITS OF THE LAW.
AND ONE OF MY OBJECTIONS, WHICH WAS PRETTY STRONG-- IT COUNTS
FOR ONE OF THE "VERRIES--" IS WHEN WE HAVE AN IMPORTANT CASE
LIKE, THAT EVEN IF IT IS PROCEDURAL, WE SHOULD HAVE A
FULL PROCEEDING AND NOT DECIDE IT JUST ON THE BASIS OF AN
EMERGENCY MOTION, WHICH THAT WAS.
( APPLAUSE ).
>> YOU ALSO-- YOU ALSO-- YOU AND SOTOMAYOR SAID I DISSENT
ININSTEAD OF THE TRADITIONAL I RESPECTFULLY DISSENT.
IS THAT A SUPREME COURT MIC DROP?
WHAT IS THAT?
IS THAT LIKE A DIS?
>> IT COULD BE.
IT NEEDN'T BE.
IT COULD BE THAT I JUST FORGET TO PUT IN--
( APPLAUSE ).
>> COULD BE, COULD BE.
WE HAVE TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK.
BUT WHEN WE RETURN, WE'LL BE BACK WO WITH MORE JUSTICE STEPHE
BREYER.
STICK AROUND, EVERYBODY.