Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has announced that he will be retiring.
Now, we all learned about this in a way that's unusual from what typically
happens when a Supreme Court justice decides they wanna retire.
There wasn't really a big formal announcement.
And since that was so unusual, there was a lot of speculation and
analysis as to why the decision was made in this way.
And we'll get to that in just a minute.
But let me begin by saying that Stephen Breyer retiring makes a lot of sense.
He's 83 years old.
It seemed as though he was very offended at progressives pressuring
him to resign last year.
But he has made the decision to resign is not the right word retire.
I would argue for obvious reasons, but maybe some haven't caught on yet.
So let's discuss that now again, the announcement was not a formal one.
And so there are some theories that the reason why he made that
decision is to avoid looking too political.
Now keep in mind that Justice Breyer is deemed one of the more liberal justices.
He's certainly liberal when it comes to social issues,
when it comes to conservative versus liberal issues.
But when it comes to corporate issues,
he tends to agree with the more corporatish judges.
And we'll get to those details in a moment.
But before we do so I thought that this video from CBS,
the analysis that you're about to hear was somewhat enlightening.
So let's watch that and then I'll break it down.
>> By kind of informally letting people know in Washington whether in
the White House or on Capitol hill.
This can kind of get the ball rolling so
that President Biden can be ready to announce his possible replacement.
Those hearings can get started earlier in the summer.
A justice will be confirmed by the time the next court session starts in October.
And of course, well in advance of the midterm.
So it is a way of kind of deep politicizing the process.
It's a way that if, if that's possible with the Supreme Court.
And it's a way that Justice Breyer could kind of get in front of this before that
drumbeat of pressure starts up again from progresses that he stepped down.
He was very, almost insulted last year by and
I was told by multiple people at the court.
That there was this pressure on him to step down because of everything he's done
for the court.
>> Now look, the unwillingness of liberal Supreme Court justices to retire
in time has led to a pretty terrible situation where the Supreme Court is
overwhelmingly conservative.
And so oftentimes when we discuss the ramifications of that.
We discussed it in the context of these social issues, which to be sure,
there's still important issues.
I mean when we're talking about reproductive rights,
that is nothing to joke around about, that is still very serious.
But when it comes to decisions in regard to workers versus corporations.
ven with a more evenly divided Supreme Court.
ven in a context where you had more liberal Supreme Court justices
rather than conservative Supreme Court justices.
You would still see these pro corporate decisions handed down and
I'll give you examples of that in a bit.
But this is big news.
It's big news,
not only because this could have an impact on the Biden administration's
ability to replace a liberal justice with another liberal justice.
It also communicates something it implies something.
And what it implies,
especially considering that he did not want to step down or retire last year,
is that he can read the tea leaves much like the rest of the country.
The Biden administration is in a lot of trouble.
And for Breyer to remain on the Supreme Court knowing that
it is likely that republicans are going to take control of the senate.
That would be pretty irresponsible.
If Biden has any shot at ensuring that he would have any
influence on the Supreme Court.
He would need to Breyer would need to retire.
And I think that's the decision that he has decided to make.
I think that the notion that this is not political.
That this is an effort to make it depoliticized,
by not announcing it formally is ridiculous.
Of course it's political, everything is political.
All these decisions get made with politics in mind.
We know this.
So I think this was the right move.
I would much rather have Biden as much as I disagree and
really hate how he's handled the presidency so far.
I'd rather have him nominate a Supreme Court justice in
Breyer's place than a republican sometime in the future.
And if he is to do that, it would need to happen soon.
Because again, republicans are likely to take control of the Senate.
And it would be unlikely that a republican controlled senate would
confirm Biden's nomination.
It's just the fact of the matter.
We know what happened to Merrick garland.
We don't have to rehash all of that.
Okay, so with that said, let's also talk about what this means for
the future of the Supreme Court.
I am not willing to predict that the Democratic Party will not somehow
bungle this, I think that that's still a possibility.
There's still a possibility that the corporate wing of the Democratic Party,
certainly in the Senate could stand in the way of this.
Who's to say that Joe Manchin doesn't stand in the way of the confirmation for
Breyer's replacement.
I mean, obviously he could be bought easily.
Same with cinema, obviously there's no amount of public rage
that persuades them to do otherwise.
And we also know that the biden administration is unwilling to ever apply
any pressure to ensure passage of the administration's agenda.
So if Mansion is legally bribed through our system of legalized
bribery to vote against confirming biden's pick.
I just I don't see biden really doing anything about it.
I see him like raising his hands in the air, throwing his hands in the air and
just saying like what could I do?
There's like, mansion is a good guy, cinemas smart as the devil and
they're great and I'm gonna say all sorts of complimentary things about them
even though they have stood in the way of everything I've wanted to accomplish.
So I want to just put that out there.
I'm not certain that's what the outcome will be.
I'm just saying there's still a possibility that democrats will
bungle this.
With that said though there's already talk about possible
Supreme Court picks by joe Biden.
This next video will give you a few details into that.
And then we'll talk about how important it is to replace Breyer with someone who's
not simply another Breyer but someone who's actually progressive.
Let's watch.
>> Justice Breyer was the most senior liberal justice after
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died just over a year ago.
But he was no means the furthest left on the court.
So I do think that President Biden has the opportunity to put
onto the court a nominee who is both more progressive than Justice Breyer.
And importantly, quite a bit younger than justice Breyer.
President Biden has suggested very strongly that he would like to nominate
a woman of color, ideally an African American woman to the Supreme court which
would be a first if he does put an African American woman on the court.
And there are some very very distinguished short listers whose names we have heard in
circulation.
One, judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the DC Circuit.
She's actually a former Breyer clerk herself and
an extremely distinguished jurist after a very distinguished career in practice.
The DC Circuit is kind of like the Junior Supreme Court is the second most
powerful court in the country.
So that's a natural stepping stone to the Supreme Court.
We've also heard the name Leondra Kruger also an African American woman.
A justice on the California Supreme Court,
also an incredibly distinguished career in the federal government.
She argued before the Supreme Court many times in the solicitor general's office
and has now been on the California Supreme Court for about seven years.
So I think those two are the top of the list.
>> Now, I'm sure all of the women you saw on the screen are perfectly lovely.
This is not a commentary about what I think about them specifically.
But it is a commentary about the way that discussion was handled on CBS.
Because what did the commentary and analysis really center on the identity,
the physical identity, the race identity,
the gender identity of the people who might be considered, which is fine.
There's no problem.
In fact, it's great to have diversity on the Supreme Court.
But there's absolutely no analysis about the substance of the women mentioned,
right?
Meaning, are these individuals who have a more progressive take certainly on
issues where you have to make decisions in regard to labor versus corporations?
Because what we do need on the Supreme Court,
what we desperately need on the Supreme Court, is more representation for workers.
Even in the context of a more liberal Supreme Court.
Even in the context of a Supreme Court that includes Breyer.
We have seen one pro corporate ruling after the next.
And I wanna give you the details about that which was written in
a piece by the daily poster, David Sirota reporting.
Data from the Constitutional accountability center tell the story of
a seismic transformation in American jurisprudence.
Where as Chief Justice Warren Burger's court sided with Chamber
meaning the US Chamber of Commerce.
With chamber amicus briefs just 43% of the time
the Roberts Court has sided with the chamber 70% of the time,
including 83% of the time in the most recent session.
Breyer himself has voted with the chamber position a majority of the time.
So I give you that information because it's not simply good enough if
you ask me to replace Breyer with someone who is socially liberal.
We need representation for workers on the Supreme Court.
And yes, I totally understand that even if a progressive is the one
who ends up replacing Breyer.
We still have a conservative majority in the Supreme Court.
But if we have an opportunity to make sure that there's progressive representation,
worker representation on the Supreme Court.
We need to fight for that.
In practice that has met Breyer recently, voting to restrict regulations,
power to punish wall street criminals.
To empower fossil fuel companies, to brush off environmental concerns, and
to oppose a state mining ban.
It means Breyer voting to shield companies from liability when they face allegations
of human rights abuses abroad.
It means Breyer voting to limit consumer debt protections.
And as the progressive legal publication balls and strikes notes.
Breyer 27 year career of rulings have protected big business
privilege from antitrust lawsuits.
We need to stop allowing the media to divert our attention to
the aesthetics of change, when in reality,
what ends up happening is the continuation of the status quo.
And so again, I have no problem whatsoever with a racially diverse Supreme Court.
I think that would be wonderful.
But we also need to ensure that aside from the racial diversity,
the gender diversity.
We ensure that we have representation that is not represented right now in
the Supreme Court.
And that's representation that actually uplifts workers, and
protects workers as opposed to corporate interests.