SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 11, 2007
Justice Breyer Unhappy With Outcomes
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer Says Despite Difficult Term, He Still Believes In Rule Of Law
-
Photo
Stephen Breyer, as US Supreme Court Associate Justice, speaks during the John Kenneth Galbraith Honor Lecture, Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 18, 2006. (AP / file)
-
Interactive
The Supreme Court
History, traditions and key cases, plus what it takes to get on the bench.
"I was in dissent quite a lot and I wasn't happy," Breyer said at the American Bar Association's annual meeting.
Breyer was one of four liberal justices who dissented in cases involving abortion rights, school integration and pay discrimination. In the school case, in which the court struck down student assignment plans in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle, his frustration bubbled over in a lengthy dissent that was twice as long as any he had written in his 13 years on the court.
Yet with the passage of some time, Breyer said the court's term underscored his faith in the rule of law.
"When I look at it objectively, I think how I wish I'd won, but I also think, not a bad system," Breyer said.
"I'm not going to be in the majority all the time. How I wish I were, but that's the system. That's called the rule of law," he said.
Earlier, addressing another ABA audience, Breyer said the major division in the world is between people committed to resolving disputes through a system of laws and those who are not.
Breyer praised the group's volunteer effort to train lawyers and judges around the world to adhere to the rule of law, despite changing political environments.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Breyer said: "I began to see that the true division of importance in the world is not between different countries. The important division is between those who are committed to reason, to working out things, to understanding other people, to peaceful resolution of their differences ... and those who don't think that."
He said the nine justices on the court were unanimous in that belief, even as they disagree vigorously over the issues that come before them.
At the time of the attacks, Breyer said, he was in India with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to meet with judges and lawyers there. Even as American diplomats wanted to send the justices home immediately, they insisted on going ahead with meetings to demonstrate the strength of the U.S. system, he said.
Since 1990, the ABA has sent lawyers to emerging democracies to promote anti-corruption laws, criminal law reform and formation of an apolitical corps of judges.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Politics
-
Video
G8 Summit On Environment
-
Video
A Presidential Mistep
-
Video
Washington Unplugged 7-9-09
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 51 CommentsHow I hope you are correct, Randall, but I fear that whoever is in office will instead lisren to the vast amounts of corruption money, and the results will favor the status quo, which spells the accelerated demise of the country, the judges are not picked according to a need to protect the people, but to protect the corrupt, and fascism is the most efficient way to do that.
The judges are also afraid that not only are aspects of the deliberations unacceptable to the American public, but also illegal, after all, some of their recent decisions are so contrary to the law and to common sense, that if we really saw how they arrived at them we would, as a people, probably be waiting for them in the parking lot.
Dictatorships that rely on brute force rarely last more than a few decades, if that. Which is the primary reason communities adopted some form of representative government. Some more effective than others.
Communal existence requires some form of arbitration to resolve our disagreements. We can resort to the rule of the jungle and destroy ourselves, or, we can resort to the rule of law.
Courts should never bend to the whimsy of public opinion. Judges are not politicians, they are responsible for ensuring the rules are interpreted fairly and objectively for all. Catering to extremist views is not their purpose.
It appears the Bush administration prefers the rule of the jungle. Which is a menace to civilization, not only in the US, but around the world.
but they can't fool everyone.
Posted by drivelphobe at 12:25 AM : Aug 12, 2007
Amen to that drivephobe, I am also more than fed up with the liberals rapeing and pilageing of America, turning the nation into a Godless, valueless,and moralless conglomeration
In theory, you are 1,000% correct, tuck, but the latest installment is just another in a long line of examples going back to the Gore/Bush debacle, and farther, all the way to Dred Scott, where the whimsy of public opinion, and the vested interests of the profitmakers took precedence over the need to impartially protect those born in this country, and therefore entitled it.
You and a microscopically small mumber of people, who see Bush's corruption as a "war on Islam" need to put on the gear and go fight it yourselves, because you are the only ones who wish it to be a religious war. How many times do you need to be reminded that a religious war was never among the reasons given by Bush for starting these illegal invasions?
You are worse than the most extreme Wahabist, advocating the destruction of people who have never harmed you, and that you seem to be too ignorant to see have no qualm with you, only with those who would invade their land and take their resources, using your hypocritical excuse as some kind of twisted justification.
Nah, dude, you're only a winner if you don't need to get a check...
Posted by brianbwb at 01:19 AM : Aug 12, 2007
Either you are of the muslim faith or ignorant of jihad ideals and goals. Have you already forgotten the countless attacks on America and many other countries by islamist terrorists ? Are you one of them that think saddam was'nt so bad after all . Make no mistake about it , Islamic jihad is a real threat to every none muslim and will not disappear if you ignore it
Posted by jankebenz at 01:50 AM : Aug 12, 2007
Saddam had NOTHING to do with Islamic Terrorists and in fact was nearly as hated by them as America is! They were sworn enemies as he was also with Iran. To try to connect the two is to continue that blatant lie that Bush has put out that got us into this war of insanity and choice!! Yes he was a monster, but no it's not the US's job to be world cops and take out every dictator who hates us. If you want to make a case that he should have been taken out by the us and or the UN, then do it (tough it's an augment you'll lose), but do NOT continue this lie that there was a connection between him and 911 or between him and bin Laden! Isn't it about time we have at least SOME honesty about our foreign policy?
Posted by drivelphobe at 12:25 AM : Aug 12, 2007
No it means standing up for our Constitutional rights! It means believing in the Declaration of Underpants and the Bill of Rights. It means never surrendering those rights to the government for ANY reason and certainly not because some Americans have become such complete cowards and scared little children that they'll sell those rights for some supposed security from a monkey in a man's suit who has proven time and time again that he's an incompetent IDIOT! And before you bring it up, no he has NOT protected us since 9-11 and the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil is in spite of him leaving the ports and nuclear facilities even less protected! AND trying to sell control of our ports to a Middle-Eastern country! You who support his stealing of our rights are worst then frightened little children. Well I for one would rather have to face down attacks on America everyday then give up one single right that my family and many others fought and died to preserve! COWARDS, the lot of you!
Don't waste perfectly good indignation on the less educated, keep it focused, laser like, on Bush. As for the Alzheimer's victims that can't remember how we got suckered into this war, and can't accept the fact that their hero lied and continues to lie to them, just like the uneducated pawns they are, these suckers are comfortable in their xenophobia, and rational thought is as foreign to them as a Mexican is.
I am a non Muslim. In fact, I don't subscribe to any organized religion, but I know many things you don't. I have lived for the better part of twenty five years amongst Muslims, they know I am not a Muslim, yet I have received more respect, friendship, and business opportunities than I ever did in the states.
The extremists represent Islam to the same degree as the KKK represents Christianity (maybe you think they actually do, but that's a different subject). Mainstream Islam looks upon these people as Kaffir (without a soul) and Munafiq (hypocritical), and they call these people traitors to their religion, acting on the orders of their puppet masters in Washington to provide people like you with propaganda.
In light of considerable evidence, I tend to agree with them. There hasn't been an attack since 9/11 because Cheney hasn't ordered one, but the Iraq report is due soon, it won't be good for Bush, so expect one soon.
You presume to judge that which you obviously know nothing whatsoever about, that is the mark of a fool.
The words of a LIBERAL. Conservatives have no interest in any of that if it means LOSING. The Constitution is just RED TAPE.
The Declaration of Underpants
We hold these ****s to be self evident, that all men are not created equal, but that they are endowed be their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are liberty from diktasterships that presume to make laws regarding what we do with the area inside our own underpants according to the pursuit of happiness.
Is that the one?
Or is it the one that starts "when intercourse of human events, it becomes necessary to dissolve the pills..."
I am humbled and grateful for your assent. I do this because I am out here in South east Asia, trying to widen avenues of cultural cooperation and communication, and open opportunities for business with countries that are majority Muslim, Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, and I post here because some of my friends here, both Muslim and Christian, pointed out to me how vitriolic and ignorant some of these posters are. With my posts, I try to show them that voices of reason (I try to be reasonable, but Lawd knows its hard) can be accepted in public blogs, even if they are lacking from mainstream news.
In other words, for self preservation (just kidding on that last one ; )
It is from reasonable and rational thinkers like RandalDS, Tuckerdfw, SearingTruth, koko98, your good self, and others that the world can see in these blogs that there are indeed a few Americans left who can reason together, and even in disagreement, can still discourse with intelligence (except me, I'm totally nutz) and arrive at logical conclusions.
Sadly, this kind of discourse has been missing from the mainstream media fro quite some time...
You are what typifies the Dem party, full of bigotry and willing to lie any time. You try and bury the truth in a mountain of lies.
You will find everything wrong, that is good, with the Iraq report no matter what it says, everything is politics with your crowd. People like your kind are what make up lynch mobs.
Well said.....
Boo-hoo-hoo....what a bedwetting lib whiner! Why don't you just QUIT? What a baby! This arseclown doesn't belong on the SC.
Since the OJ Simpson case, there has been a keen public interest in the Courts by both the public and the media. There's even been entire television channels dedicated to Court cases. And famous news commentators, with justice as their claim to fame. And a Jury is a the public.
Its very very important to a civilization to argue in healthy debate the many Court cases it faces. And certainly there's going to be those overly emotional. There's most certainly going to be the torch and the noose, and the carpetbagger hype. But this is a thing like soda pop. It will fizz out, and the American people will eventually come to understand what is likely the most difficult of things to understand in this country: Justice. And no longer be antagonized by the uncertainty of justice in their lives.
Posted by infidel_us at 12:24 PM : Aug 12, 2007
Again with your urine fetish! Please, either get help for this kink or talk about it in some sick chat room! People here are tired of your fascination with getting peed on!
Thats why I think its very very important that government charge itself with the education of its layman concerning Justice. And televise supreme court deliberations.
Or is justice a thing of professional degree? Of strict, disciplined guidelines? That guarantee everybody a chance at defending themselves from tyranny?
I read your post and could not agree with you more. We are heading for a big fall and we are starting to slide down the hill right now and that snowball is getting bigger and bigger.I honestly cannot believe what this administration has done to this country, and our representatives will not impeach,what do you have to do to impeach in this country ,if we let them get away with the harm they have done the next pres will say George Bush did it why bother me.
That is what it is all about Randal, Once again right on the nose enjoyed your post.
Posted by starleo146 at 01:43 PM : Aug 12, 2007
Thanks, it's always nice to know that someone gets "it", even if the neocons are unable to. FYI, I used to post as RandalDS, but some troll figured out that a capital "I" looks like the small "L" in my old signon in the font that CBS uses and has been posting garbage in what LOOKS like my name. I've sent an email to a few friends here so they know this is really the same old angry liberal that I've always been, just with a new signon name. So starting this morning no more RandalDS, just SgtRDS from now on.
To "impeach" means to "accuse"
The House of Representatives may have the sole authority to "impeach"
however, it is the Senate that has the sole power to remove a person from office.
It takes 67 Senators to remove anyone from office, and there are only 50 Democrats.
It will never happen.
AFTERALL, BILL CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED, YET HE REMAINED IN OFFICE.
...
+ report abuse
O.K. Sarge got it have a great day.
+ report abuse
Oh don't worry we will find a way, folks are still bashing Clinton so I say what goes around comes around.
Its just too much, ya see. And its not too much reality, but rather; too much bullshyyt. All politically based.. All some politicians play to look good. I still don't know who killed Chandra Levy. And I guess I'm not supposed to know. Sure was a headline though.
Posted by JDUBS63 at 03:45 PM : Aug 12, 2007
Thanks, I'm not sure who it is that came up with stealing my signon, but it's a pretty dam*n childish thing to do, so it could be any one of 4 or 5 right wing trolls. To tell the truth though I sort of like this one better anyway and there's not really a way to copy it.
could they have averted the war?
Posted by SgtRDS at 02:00 PM : Aug 12, 2007
A tu*rd by any other name......so now you'll be known as SgtB$. Same lib loser....different day.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 51 Comments