The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Charles Breyer on Stephen Breyer's Retirement: "I think it's clear that politics played a role"
A bit of political brotherly love.
The Breyer family is very accomplished. Older brother Stephen Breyer was appointed to the First Circuit at the young age of 42, and was elevated to the Supreme Court when he was 56. Younger brother Charles Breyer was appointed to the U.S. District Court at the age of 56. He has served on that court for more than two decades.
Robert Barnes of the Washington Post asked Judge Charles Breyer about his brother's retirement.
But Breyer's decision to retire reflects another side of him, one often mentioned in descriptions of his time on the court: pragmatist.
"I think it's clear that politics played a role" in his decision to retire, Breyer's brother Charles, a federal district judge in San Francisco, said Thursday. "He's pragmatic and politics is a factor . . . that has to be considered."
It's not the only thing, Charles Breyer said. Only in the realm of the lifetime appointments the Supreme Court affords is an inquiry launched as to why an 83-year-old really wants to retire.
"Obviously his age is a factor," the 80-year-old Breyer said. "And he did not want to terminate his service on the court by death — that's not the exit he wanted."
Some brotherly love, huh?
For more than a year, Justice Breyer insisted that his decision to retire will not be based on politics. And, as usual, his reasoning was muddled. Last August, I wrote:
Justice Breyer approaches his retirement the same way he approaches his judicial decisions: with an indeterminate, multi-factor balancing test.
Then, lo and behold, that multi-factor balancing test tilts left. Breyer retires with a Democratic President, who may lose his Democratic Senate majority at any minute. And he announces his retirement at the White House. Plus, his brother insists that the retirement was based in part on politics!
I don't begrudge Justice Breyer. He saw what happened to his colleagues who died in office, including Justices Ginsburg, Scalia, and Chief Justice Rehnquist. And he knows how fleeting majorities are in the senate. Plus, the pressure from the Demand Justice crowd must be suffocating. So he made a pragmatic decision. But it was a decision, as Judge Breyer explained, in which "politics played a role."
Update: Demand Justice is using Breyer's appearance at the White House as a photo-op:
Demand Justice, which was publicly pressuring Justice Breyer to retire for months and drove a truck around DC that said as much on it, is now driving this truck around Capitol Hill today. pic.twitter.com/dMceVJUjuy
— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) January 28, 2022
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
My God, what a scoop. Justices want to be replaced by new justices who share their judicial philosophies!?!???
Excellent insight into Breyer's mindset. Next, undoubtedly, will be a similar dissection of Justice Sandra Day OC, who famously said on election day that she'd not retire while a Dem was president. (I've also heard a different version, where it was her husband who announced it, while standing next to her, and she declined to contradict him.)
If Senator Moscow Mitch were not such a whore, I suspect that Breyer would have been happier staying on the job for another few years, and then retiring in the last year of Biden's first term/only term. Whore Mitch has ensured that no justice in the future will do this, unless a same-party Senate majority is absolutely assured at the next election.
"If Senator Moscow Mitch were not such a whore,"
Or you could say if we had a Republican President and Senator Schumer could block the vote:
"If Senator Beijing Schumer were not such a whore,"
Truth is that since Roe Supreme Court nominations in particular and judicial nominations in general have become part of everyday political warfare in the Senate. Just as Senate Democrats contested every Trump judicial nomination and would have blocked all they could, the Republicans will block the Biden nominations they can.
I think it's unfortunate but don't blame McConnell, or Schumer, we started going down this road long before they were in charge.
Nope, he's a whore. When he screwed over Garland, that was awful, but political hardball. Okay. But rarely to we see God intervene and so overtly give a person a chance to show integrity. God saw fit to give Whore Mitch a Sup. Ct opening (Dem president) in Feb of Obama's last year in office. Way too late in the cycle for Mitch. "The voters must be given a chance (in the Nov elections) to speak." God said, 'Okay, Whore Mitch; I'll give you an opening, months and months closer to the next election...but with a Rep president. Let's see how your respond."
And we know how Whore Mitch responded. Threw his ethics and integrity out the window. "Oh, shit. It's much closer to an election, but it's a *Republican* president? Let's get her confirmed, and let's get her confirmed as soon as possible."
While I admire in some ways the ability of any politician to whore himself with no shame; this one was particularly impressive. Whorish Whore Mitch, whoring his whorable whorrific self. Impressive indeed.
Given how well Garland has turned out as Attorney General, Mitch the Murder Turtle did the country a great service.
Indeed. Merrick Garland might be the biggest hack to be AG, and with Eric Holder in the running that takes some doing.
Lathering the rubes
Professors Blackman, Volokh
Lathering their rubes
I'm genuinely curious: what do you find objectionable about Garland's tenure in the last year?
He keep prosecuting the Jan 6 patriots.
The whole school board/domestic terrorism fiasco for one.
Garland? The guy that will NEVER be a supreme court justice?
Glory be!
All politicians are whores.
Mitch is just an effective whore. My condolences on you having Chukles Schumer as your whore instead.
Some brotherly love, huh?
You're a dick.
Quite true. But in Josh’s case I think it’s better described as obnoxious immaturity.
You're a dick.
Agreed.
I know this lawyer who writes briefs like that. He sprinkles weird little things* like that all throughout. He’s generally thought of as a dick and not a very good lawyer.
*I was going to say quips but that didn’t seem to fit, quips require some level of wit.
No kidding!
"Only in the realm of the lifetime appointments the Supreme Court affords is an inquiry launched as to why an 83-year-old really wants to retire."
Indeed. Let him retire in peace! He is 83 years old, and had been a judge for more than four decades. I am not going to criticize him for choosing to retire at 83 rather than 85 or 75 or another number that pleases him. I am just glad that the Supreme Court is, unlike our government's other branches, apparently still in full enjoyment of its members' mental faculties.
*has been a judge.
I often wonder whether a different keyboard layout would be better for phones in terms of autocorrect-related errors.
You can try the Dvorak layout. I have yet to try that myself but it's in my future.
I tried Dvorak for a while on a mechanical keyboard back in the day. It was fine, and clearly reduced overall finger travel as advertised. But I think it only ends up being much of a net plus if you don't have to also use QWERTY keyboards regularly in other contexts and thus constantly confuse your muscle memory.
In the phone context, I wonder how much it really changes since the issue there is not so much finger (thumb) travel but overall accuracy in striking the "keys," and you're only using a couple of fingers so the concept of a "home row" as on a mechanical keyboard is a bit murky anyway.
There is an easy solution that will prevent 100% of auto correct errors....
Turn auto correct off.
These Ivy indoctrinated lawyer dumbasses are fungible. That applies to conservative versus liberal ones. They are all advocates of big, intrusive, tyrannical, quack government rent seeking, and the enrichment of the lawyer profession. They are enforcers of the criminal cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession, with its supernatural, idiotic doctrines, and its $trillion take a year.
Ouch...then you're not going to like this list: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/handicapping-president-bidens-supreme
Three of the top four picks list these schools:
Harvard University
Harvard Law School
Yale Law School
Princeton University
You're trying your darndest to own that lib on his way out the door, Blackman. What a dick.
Wow.
This post really is the work of a complete asshole.
I thank you for your eloquence. Bravo!
I imagine that having an incomplete asshole would be rather painful.
I agree, Matthew.
OK: I saw the post title and thought that has to be Blackman. No other contributor here would fill column space with the scoop that water is wet.
So what's the over/under on the number of posts J.B. will generate from this retirement and nomination? Will it double or triple the production of his nearest competitor here? I'm not a betting man myself, but there has to be some Vegas action on these questions...
So I assume Biden isn’t going to post a Josh Blackman thirst trap, which might cut down posts. And of course the balance isn’t changing in dramatic fashion (well arguably the new appointee will be more liberal than Breyer especially on criminal justice)
But on the other hand nominating a fairly young black woman is going to lead to some, ah, pretty weird posts too I bet. So it’s anyones guess.
*appoint lol.
Yep. The huckleberries here have had to do a fine dance on their racial animus towards negroes for the last 30 years with Thomas on the bench. Him also being the first true racial quota. The new black liberal justice is going to have them twisted like a pretzel.
The Volokh Conspiracy doesn't call them "negroes." Not 15 times, at least, during 2021.
That's not 15 publications of a vile racial slur. That's 15 posts-with-comments -- using that word repeatedly in many of those exchanges -- during a single year.
That's the Volokh Conspiracy.
" But on the other hand nominating a fairly young black woman is going to lead to some, ah, pretty weird posts too I bet. So it’s anyones guess. "
I will donate One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) to charity if the Volokh Conspiracy publishes a 1,000-word analysis from guest-blogger Prof. Amy Wax concerning a Biden nomination of a Black woman for a Supreme Court position.
Who needs Amy Wax as a guest when you have Gail Heriot?
That's Prof. and Commissioner Gail "Independent, Officially Independent, Non-Republican, Definitely Not A Republican, In No Way A Disingenuous Partisan Schemer" Heriot.
Profs. Heriot and Wax would make a great tag team in this context. The $1,000 offer covers a joint Wax-Heriot contribution to the Volokh Conspiracy, too. I'll throw in another hundred if those two actually make it through 1,000 words without using a vile racial slur.
Some other contributor here might do that, from time to time. None of them would do so with the gossip that water is wet.
" I don't begrudge Justice Breyer. "
Just as I do not begrudge an obsolete, immature, right-wing law professor mired at a joke school and publishing this level of analysis at a White, male, polemical, bigoted blog for White nationalists, autistic incels, superstitious gay-haters, and other conservative culture war casualties.
Did Prof. Volokh genuinely believe that adding Prof. Blackman to the Volokh Conspiracy lineup would improve this blog's pursuit of its stated mission (making right-wing positions and thinking more palatable in mainstream America, beyond the Heritage-Federalist-Olin-Republican-Bradley-Scaife-National Policy-Family Research clingerverse)?
There doesn't appear to be a flag button for Blackman. Do you know how to get ahold of Voloch, Artie? I come here for legal matters, not grievance politics (although that's what I practice in the comments here...but I'm special)
Mostly, Prof. Volokh contacts me -- to impose censorship when I make fun of conservatives too deftly for his taste (the late, great Artie Ray), or when my words (sl_ck-jaw_d, c_p succ_r) hurt the feelings of his conservative audience.
That's how a conservative "free speech champion" rolls. Vanishing comments, banned commenters, forbidden words.
There's a long-standing meme that half of all New Yorker cartoons could be captioned "Christ, what an asshole." We should adopt something similar for Blackman posts.
There's a long-standing meme that half of all New Yorker cartoons could be captioned "Christ, what an asshole."
Probably a meme that has been ricocheting around Dubuque since the 1930s.
I think it was actually all New Yorker cartoons. And then it was expanded to it fitting for pretty much any one panel cartoon. Works as a last FoxTrot panel really well.
My person favorite is Lucy from Peanuts saying it.
I'm not sure it works w/ my all-time favorite New Yorker cartoon :
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/random/share/2907075
Meh. Still works imho.
For many years, this mug resided on my desk.
For a few years, I gave that mug to new associates as a welcoming gift.
After I left the full-time practice of law, this one has decorated an office wall.
You mean the people that sat outside and demanded Breyer resign this term actually meant what they were saying? That extreme leftist activists might have pushed him to make his decision? Wow. Just blew my mind.
Yes, Jimmy the Dane, that is what occurred. You can get back to watching Fox and Newsmax, muttering about all of this damned progress, and awaiting the Rapture.
"Wow. Just blew my mind."
Which isn't a difficult thing to do, Jimmy. Shiny objects and so forth...
And here are some shiny little trinkets for you and AK to play with because you clearly lack the intellectual capacity to discern that I was being sarcastic....
Unless you were being sarcastic that "extreme leftist activists might have pushed him to make his decision" then you are the idiot they thought you were.
Being sarcastic that yes answers to your fanciful rhetorical questions are surprising, i.e., telling us you think that, in fact, the yes answers are bleeding obvious, just makes your comment even more stupid. Which I don't think any of us thought possible, but you managed it. Kudos.
Here's a different question for you all. Breyer's retirement letter is very interesting. It says "I intend for this decision [retirement] to take effect when the Court rises for the summer recess this year assuming that by then my successor has been nominated and confirmed".
That's an interesting clause. "Assuming that by then my successor has been nominated and confirmed". Which implies that Breyer anticipates his successor will be nominated and confirmed BEFORE Breyer officially retires.
Here's the question. Can the Senate legally confirm a new SCOTUS justice before the position is actually open? (I don't think they can).
But, if you do think they can....how long does such a confirmation hold? If the composition of the Senate changes, in between the confirmation and the opening of the position, is the confirmation still valid?
Wow, so many leftist triggered -- atta boy, Josh!!!!
As I understand it justice Kennedy tells Trump he will retire upon condition that his former clerk Kavanaugh is nominated to be his replacement. I thought that was an insult to the constitution because it was an attempt to pervert the very purpose of the lifetime appointment of justices. That is, that a seat on SCOTUS was not a political appointment.
I think they've all been political appointments to some degree, at least since 1800.
O'Connor continued on for 6 months as the appointment process wound it's way forward, retiring on the same day as Alito's swearing in.
Biden is moving forward with the process with only a non-binding suggestion from Breyer that he intends to step down.
So question for the SCOTUS experts:
Assume a senate confirmation affirms a new Biden appointee, and Breyer decides to hang on a while longer.
-is that new appointee guaranteed on-deck for the next available spot, regardless of who dies or retires next?
-would that on-deck status remain in perpetuity, even into another administration?
-Could a president fill the on-deck circle with multiple senate approved appointees absent any present actual openings?