The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Breyer Continues To Confound About His Retirement
He implores Nina Totenberg, "I would like this interview to be about my book."
Poor Justice Breyer. He just wants to hawk his book, but everyone keeps asking him about his retirement. His latest interview with Nina Totenberg of NPR is confounding.
Here is the transcript:
Totenberg: You did pretty well, in the 2020 term, you wrote some very important opinions on the ACA, on student speech, you have advanced, some important compromises on the Court this this past term. So at least as I look at things now, I would guess that at some time relatively early in the upcoming term, you will announce plans to retire. Am I wrong?
Breyer: I'm only going to say that I'm not going to go beyond what I previously said on the subject. And that is that I do not believe I should stay on the Supreme Court or want to stay on the Supreme Court until I die. And when exactly I should retire, or will retire, has many complex parts to it. I think I'm aware of most of them, and I am and will consider them.
Totenberg: What are the factors that a Justice–
Breyer: Oh, there are quite a few. And I'm not going beyond what I said for the simple reason that I would like this interview to be about my book.
[Laughter]
I don't know why Nina thought he would announce his retirement early in the term. Breyer did seem a bit defensive. Stay tuned.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
She should have framed it around RBG and Scalia and asked him if he believes what happened in the aftermath of their respective passings were ideal or suboptimal. And then ask him if he believes he is more skilled than them with respect to dancing with the Grim Reaper.
That’s actually a good way to frame the question. Blackman’s take on it seems weird. (“Wait, what?!? Someone who has been asked the same question 253 times before is starting to sound defensive when asked again for the 254th time? What can I read into that???”)
I wonder how defensive all you Josh-bashers must be then; it’s certainly more than 253 times you folks have slagged him with personal insults.
I listened to the interview. Breyer is typical. He will be replaced by typical. After the new Congress of Nov., 2022, all Biden nominees should be blocked until the election of a Republican President, likely Trump if alive. Even if that happens, the Republican nominee will be typical. Even if atypical, after 2 years of Washington acculturation, he will become typical.
There might be an English-language or reading issue going on. Some people insult Josh. (I think I probably am in that large group as well, on rare occasions, alas.) But you are confusing ‘criticism’ (esp of an idea or argument or wording) with an ‘insult.’ Examples, in general:
-Mike is stupid. (Personal insult)
-Mike is a terrible law prof (Personal insult)
-Mike has no moral center (Personal insult)
-Mike makes an illogical argument when he ____ [Not insult]
-Mike’s take on this is weird. [Not an insult. At least, not of “Mike,” but rather, of Mike’s argument]
-Mike relies on unpersuasive precedent [Not insult]
Á àß äẞç; I take it that you are not a lawyer, and did not go to law school, correct? [NOT an insult…just asking, to get some clarification in my own mind.]
I have never seen a criticism of Josh that uses the format, makes an illogical argument when he __________. All I see are Democrat scumbag lawyers mock Josh personally. Personal attack is all the left has, since the facts abandoned it 100 years ago.
All these scumbag lawyers need to be replaced by a diverse.
“The days of our lives are seventy years; And if by reason of strength they are eighty years, Yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.”
Breyer will learn soon enough.
Totenberg is still around? Wasn’t she discredited 30 years ago? Seriously its the same cast of characters..NPR far left NYC types…its pathetic. Disgusting..
“So, let me start with page 1 of your book, where you fail to mention your retirement. Why is that?”
Totenberg is an unethical journalist and a hack propagandist for the radical left wing of the Democrat Party.
I would imagine the Supreme Court would be a super-sweet gig. I mean, there’s a lot of work, but you have eager clerks from the best law schools to keep you from screwing up *unintentionally.* You spend your time on earth-shaking cases and people (not just Blackman) parse your every word.
Generally, unless you’re John Jay (and that was a while ago), the Supreme Court is basically the end of the line careerwise. After that, you sit around in your slippers watching Matlock, and pondering your past greatness – and how you could have written better opinions than the guys currently on the Court.
So why retire? Why not die in harness like Catherine the Great – oops, wrong analogy.
What work is required to be on Supreme Court? Less work is involved than being a postal worker, sleeping in a truck, and dumping mail in the trash.
That’s a fair point. Be like Souter and go back to the JV squad or go out at your peak. Easy decision to make, really.
One of my law professors also pointed out that nearly all Justices who retire die within a year after their retirement. O’Connor and Stevens have since changed that, but I strongly suspect that future longevity is a definite consideration for guys like Breyer.
Totenberg is a far left shill and not a journalist. The evidence that she asks leading questions like when a justice will retire shows her extreme bias.
That said whatever said justice does is not up to far left degenerates to decide, who are decidedly in the authoritarian anti constitutional camp anyway.
I don’t really get the leftist urgency over it. There will be a Democrat president until at least January 2025 and, barring a death or resignation, a Democrat majority in the Senate until at least January 2023, And even if the Senate flips, will it much matter? I doubt it. Who is the last Democrat judicial nominee who actually got a hard time from the GOP during hearings? Alan Dershowitz predicted Breyer would resign in early 2022, after this year’s docket. I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened.
Even if they lose the Senate in next year’s election, it would be perfectly constitutional to hold the confirmation vote during a lame duck session. And no filibuster, remember.
So he’s got plenty of time to retire on his own schedule, assuming biology cooperates.
All true, but recall the new Supreme Court term begins in October, and I doubt Breyer is going to muck up the works and resign a month into it just because it might help the Democrats a little bit in confirming a successor. I suspect, if he begins the term, he will finish it (if he is physically able, of course).
Whoever is President by next year, (I doubt Biden at this rate.) would be well advised to have a well vetted short list of candidates.
And if they lose the Senate before next year’s election? They have no margin. A single Democratic senator dies, and the GOP controls the senate. DiFi is 88. Leahy is 81. Bernie is 80. (It looks like the GOP’s Hail Mary attempt to take the California statehouse is going to fail, but Vermont has a Republican governor who would have the opportunity to stall on calling a special election to replace Leahy/Sanders.)
I can’t tell if this is the most ignorant or most dishonest argument in the history of Volokh. Given that you hackishly repeatedly say “Democrat” when the actual, correct English word is “Democratic,” I am going to assume that the right answer is “dishonest.”
The last Democratic judicial nominee who got a hard time from the GOP was Merrick Garland, which you thought-was-cleverly gerrymandered your question around by saying “during hearings.” But of course they simply refused to give Garland any hearings. Which is what they would do again if they controlled the Senate.
I guess I should give you credit for admitting that Democrats will control the White House until January 2025, thereby repudiating the Trump/L. Lin Wood notion that Trump is going to be reinstated soon.
“I will simply deny you the crown [robe] and… live forever.” https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0120631/movieconnections
He probably should have announced up front that if she started asking about his retiring, he’d walk out. And then done it.
It’s the only way he’s actually going to be interviewed about anything else at this point.
Honestly though “Active Liberty” was so boring why would anyone want to talk about his new book? It’s no “Matter of Interpretation”.
Perhaps some people are more interested in the thinking of a (live) winner in a debate than they are in the arguments of a (dead) loser?
What they were really thinking:
NT: “So, Justice Breyer, are you dead yet?”
JB: “Eff off, tw@t.”
Did Breyer ask Nina Totenberg when she intends to retire. I hear there are thousands of young feminist “reporters” who are eager to take over her responsibilities.
That would be tremendous.
“Nina, with all due respect, you have been recycling the same 20 paragraphs for over 50 years now. Doesn’t that get boring? I cannot understand why you don’t retire.”