Last night, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke before an audience of around 400 in a packed Cohen Auditorium as part of Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civil Life's Distinguished Speaker Series. The event, which was also sponsored by the School of Arts & Sciences and the Department of Political Science, began at 6 p.m. and ran for an hour. Dean of Tisch College Alan Solomont acted as the moderator for the evening's forum.
University President Anthony Monaco delivered opening remarks about the Distinguished Speaker Series, explaining that the series has been able to bring voices and perspectives to campus to shed light on important contemporary issues such as the environment, partisanship in politics and reproductive rights.
“Conversations like these are vital to the mission of the university … [and these individuals] compel us to follow their examples and to act to solve problem in our communities,” Monaco said.
Monaco went on to contend that few civic institutions are more integral to the democracy than the judiciary.
Shortly thereafter, Breyer and Solomont took to the stage. Before beginning to field questions, Breyer, who was both a graduate of and professor at Harvard Law School, recounted his friendship with former University President Jean Mayer, who also had a tenure at Harvard.
Solomont asked Breyer, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1994 under President Bill Clinton, how he had interpreted his predecessor Harry Blackmun’s message to him: "You will find this an unusual assignment."
Breyer said he concurred with the message.
“You are always on duty … always. Here we are … [and I must remind myself to] be careful what you say ... The job is an interesting job, and an important job … and you have to give what you have — you can’t let up,” Breyer said.
Breyer stayed true to the principles of his role as a justice throughout the night, emphasizing the necessity for him to refrain from candidly expressing his opinions in public as a part of a central body based in impartiality.
With Solomont guiding the questions, Breyer discussed impressions of partisanship in politics and in the court system as well as the role of the courts on the state level, and he spoke, as candidly as he could, about salient issues such as the cases on gerrymandering at the state level that the Supreme Court is reviewing right now.
Breyer also summarized how a case ends up before the Supreme Court, highlighting that around 100,000 cases involve federal questions. From that pool, around 8,000 will appeal to the Supreme Court to have their case heard. The justices then have their law clerks scour through the cases and write memos, at which point the justice will analyze the overviews given to them. Ultimately, it takes an affirmative vote from four justices for the case to go before the court.
Breyer then mimed a mountain of memos and explained that it takes him mere hours to decide which potential cases should be seen before the court, a process he called “mechanical.” He quipped that this rapid elimination was not due to speed reading, but rather his application of specific criteria.
“We have criteria, and the criteria is almost always ‘did the lowers courts reach different conclusions on the same federal law’ … when people have different conclusions about … a single, uniform federal law [where decisions] should be the same, then we will take it. That’s why I can narrow it,” Breyer said.
Solomont then turned the line of questioning to the partisanship within Washington and ways in which the court has evolved since Breyer was appointed nearly 25 years ago. Solomont noted that, to a third party, it appears as if the courts are seeing greater polarization, with around 20 percent of cases seeing a 5-4 vote.
However, Breyer worked to dispel the partisan slant associated with the different opinions. He posited that different drivers of judicial interpretation lie at the heart of the dissenting opinions within the court, comparing himself to his late colleague Justice Antonin Scalia. Breyer said that while Scalia relied on what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, Breyer believes that the original intent of the document must be considered in the context of the times.
“The main axis of difference, I would say, is he thinks that you can answer more of the difficult questions in front of us by relying on the language, tradition … I want to look more to what the purpose is, and look at the context. I am more reluctant to make bright-line rules,” Breyer said.“I think that explains more of our divisions than the fact that he was appointed by a Republican president and I was appointed by a Democratic president.”
Solomont then brought up the cases regarding gerrymandering that are currently before the court, to which Breyer deferred to his previous statements about a judge constantly remaining on duty.
"I can’t answer questions [about cases like this] directly, the way you like, but they say a judge should not give an opinion on a matter right before him," Breyer said. "It’s a pretty good rule that judges should keep away from just giving off-hand opinions."
As the evening ended, the floor was opened to audience questions, which spanned how Breyer would define his legacy on the court, the nature of the court following Scalia’s death, operating with only eight justices and questions about privacy.
One student's question addressed the evolving nature of the cases that courts will be seeing, with technology becoming deeply integrated into everyday life, and the challenge of hearing cases without the technological expertise required to understand them.
Breyer explained that, by educating themselves and having lawyers and experts clearly explain technicalities to the judge and jury, courts can overcome lapses in technical knowledge.
“Lawyers in particular are supposed to be able to explain things for us and the jury and to others who are not technical people,” Breyer said. “We have classes, articles, people who teach, the sheriffs association, the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], the Bar Association … and we have state legislature.”
Still, Breyer emphasized that the role of the court is as an arbiter between the decisions that are made and the constitution that governs how the democratic system should work — not as a body to pass legislation, but a way to reconcile changing regulations with the rules of the system.
“I think we work best when we come in last because our job is not to say what is good or bad for the country," Breyer said. "Our job is to decide whether what the country comes up with … is consistent with [the Constitution], and this document does not tell people how they live, but it tells them how they govern themselves."
Students who attended the event shared positive takeaways.
University President Anthony Monaco delivered opening remarks about the Distinguished Speaker Series, explaining that the series has been able to bring voices and perspectives to campus to shed light on important contemporary issues such as the environment, partisanship in politics and reproductive rights.
“Conversations like these are vital to the mission of the university … [and these individuals] compel us to follow their examples and to act to solve problem in our communities,” Monaco said.
Monaco went on to contend that few civic institutions are more integral to the democracy than the judiciary.
Shortly thereafter, Breyer and Solomont took to the stage. Before beginning to field questions, Breyer, who was both a graduate of and professor at Harvard Law School, recounted his friendship with former University President Jean Mayer, who also had a tenure at Harvard.
Solomont asked Breyer, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1994 under President Bill Clinton, how he had interpreted his predecessor Harry Blackmun’s message to him: "You will find this an unusual assignment."
Breyer said he concurred with the message.
“You are always on duty … always. Here we are … [and I must remind myself to] be careful what you say ... The job is an interesting job, and an important job … and you have to give what you have — you can’t let up,” Breyer said.
Breyer stayed true to the principles of his role as a justice throughout the night, emphasizing the necessity for him to refrain from candidly expressing his opinions in public as a part of a central body based in impartiality.
With Solomont guiding the questions, Breyer discussed impressions of partisanship in politics and in the court system as well as the role of the courts on the state level, and he spoke, as candidly as he could, about salient issues such as the cases on gerrymandering at the state level that the Supreme Court is reviewing right now.
Breyer also summarized how a case ends up before the Supreme Court, highlighting that around 100,000 cases involve federal questions. From that pool, around 8,000 will appeal to the Supreme Court to have their case heard. The justices then have their law clerks scour through the cases and write memos, at which point the justice will analyze the overviews given to them. Ultimately, it takes an affirmative vote from four justices for the case to go before the court.
Breyer then mimed a mountain of memos and explained that it takes him mere hours to decide which potential cases should be seen before the court, a process he called “mechanical.” He quipped that this rapid elimination was not due to speed reading, but rather his application of specific criteria.
“We have criteria, and the criteria is almost always ‘did the lowers courts reach different conclusions on the same federal law’ … when people have different conclusions about … a single, uniform federal law [where decisions] should be the same, then we will take it. That’s why I can narrow it,” Breyer said.
Solomont then turned the line of questioning to the partisanship within Washington and ways in which the court has evolved since Breyer was appointed nearly 25 years ago. Solomont noted that, to a third party, it appears as if the courts are seeing greater polarization, with around 20 percent of cases seeing a 5-4 vote.
However, Breyer worked to dispel the partisan slant associated with the different opinions. He posited that different drivers of judicial interpretation lie at the heart of the dissenting opinions within the court, comparing himself to his late colleague Justice Antonin Scalia. Breyer said that while Scalia relied on what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, Breyer believes that the original intent of the document must be considered in the context of the times.
“The main axis of difference, I would say, is he thinks that you can answer more of the difficult questions in front of us by relying on the language, tradition … I want to look more to what the purpose is, and look at the context. I am more reluctant to make bright-line rules,” Breyer said.“I think that explains more of our divisions than the fact that he was appointed by a Republican president and I was appointed by a Democratic president.”
Solomont then brought up the cases regarding gerrymandering that are currently before the court, to which Breyer deferred to his previous statements about a judge constantly remaining on duty.
"I can’t answer questions [about cases like this] directly, the way you like, but they say a judge should not give an opinion on a matter right before him," Breyer said. "It’s a pretty good rule that judges should keep away from just giving off-hand opinions."
As the evening ended, the floor was opened to audience questions, which spanned how Breyer would define his legacy on the court, the nature of the court following Scalia’s death, operating with only eight justices and questions about privacy.
One student's question addressed the evolving nature of the cases that courts will be seeing, with technology becoming deeply integrated into everyday life, and the challenge of hearing cases without the technological expertise required to understand them.
Breyer explained that, by educating themselves and having lawyers and experts clearly explain technicalities to the judge and jury, courts can overcome lapses in technical knowledge.
“Lawyers in particular are supposed to be able to explain things for us and the jury and to others who are not technical people,” Breyer said. “We have classes, articles, people who teach, the sheriffs association, the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], the Bar Association … and we have state legislature.”
Still, Breyer emphasized that the role of the court is as an arbiter between the decisions that are made and the constitution that governs how the democratic system should work — not as a body to pass legislation, but a way to reconcile changing regulations with the rules of the system.
“I think we work best when we come in last because our job is not to say what is good or bad for the country," Breyer said. "Our job is to decide whether what the country comes up with … is consistent with [the Constitution], and this document does not tell people how they live, but it tells them how they govern themselves."
Students who attended the event shared positive takeaways.
Sophomore Nikki Venkataraman said she left the talk appreciating the Supreme Court's norm of civility.
"I really liked when he talked about how he had never once heard any of the supreme court justices raise their voice or speak badly of any of the other justices," she said in an electronic message. "It definitely makes me have a lot of respect for them because they are debating the most controversial issues in the country and somehow they are able to stay civil and be friendly towards each other ... even though they might have completely differing political views."
