MY NEXT GUEST HAS BEEN ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT FOR
OVER 20 YEARS.
PLEASE WELCOME JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER!
(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!