December 27, 2015

"I think every person in the United States has a right to an opinion on that, which he can express publicly except for me."

"And if I have an opinion, I might talk to my wife about it, but I'm not going to talk to you."

Said Justice Breyer to ABC's Jonathan Karl, who was pushing him to say what he thought of Donald Trump's plan to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

AND: We watched nearly all the Sunday shows this morning, and we were laughing at all of the talk of Trump. The Trump name was wedged into just about everything. But it was Jonathan Karl who had the interview with Trump. Keep an eye out for that video. It's pretty amusing. Karl is practically a puppy dog in his eagerness to let Trump know that ABC should be his go-to stop for dropping a Sunday interview.

25 comments:

sean said...

An entirely appropriate response, although probably all federal judges are in the same position as Justice Breyer.

Sebastian said...

"except for me" Well, isn't he the very model of a modern jurist. Of course, he gets to express his opinion all the time. For the likes of him, in fact, judging is nothing but expressing opinions. He actively exploits that liberty.

hoyden said...

The Donald is a virtual earwig who has crawled into the Liberal MSM's mind.

chickelit said...

People need reminding that Trump only proposed banning Muslims from entering "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." If the representatives have figured this out, then fine. The travel ban is over.

Also, Trump's words were as much a critique of the Obama Administration as a dig at Muslims. People forget that. They only want to see the "Trump is a Nazi" angle.

Sammy Finkelman said...

except for me

What about the other 8 members of the United States Supreme Court?

PB said...

where's Hillary?

David Begley said...

Breyer had the sense not to say what he thinks but we know what he thinks.

Laughable for him not to say the Court is not divided along political lines. See, ACA and SSM cases.

Achilles said...

Breyer knows it is constitutional. They all know it is constitutional they just don't want to admit the constitution differentiates between Americans and the rest of the world.

Trump has given the people of this country a way to speak over the barriers the elites have put up. We are tired of our political class selling us out. Trump is the reckoning.

It will be interesting to see what the deal he and Cruz have made is.

traditionalguy said...

The Japanese citizens were interned to protect the California Defense Industries. But FDR had no fear of west coast Japanese American citizens. what he feared was how many of them still were totally loyal to Japan's Emperor and Sun God Hirohito's Religion with its own Army and Navy. Would they becoming local cells assisting Hirohito's coming invasion.

And it was coming. A feint was sent to the Aleutian Islands, but the main force started Island hopping from Midway to Pearl Harbor to finish us off there and make it Jap's Navy base supporting the invasion of California that Japs had planned for 20 years.

The SCOTUS guys then were not into helping Hirohito destroy us like Obama's Democrats are into helping Pbama's Muslims hunt down and Alah Akbar infidels.

Birkel said...

Breyer seemed to think Korematsu-like events would never happen again. Breyer will be proven wrong, again.

john said...

Poor Justice Breyer. Through his entire career as a jurist, no one ever told him that speaking out on matters that may come up in his court might be viewed as prejudicial. How unfair of ... well, everyone to hold that from him.

john said...

I wonder when he will feel the same about Kelo as he does about Hirabayashi/Yasui/Korematsu. Apparently not until after he is dead.

Saint Croix said...

"So you think it's a constitutional right to stab a baby in the middle of birth?"

That is the question you ask the author of Carhart. Why ask him about the bad stuff other people did in 1944?

But the media does not see the bodies, and so there are no homicides to report.

It's just like the New York Times did with Stalin

It's unlikely that Mr. Karl will ever have the moral dilemma of whether he should return his Pulitzer Prize, since nobody is likely to award him anything for Gossip Whore Weekly.

cubanbob said...

Trump owns the media. He has done something no Republican has ever done, he made them his bitches. Considering the media is mostly comprised of Democratic Party house organs that is an impressive feat.

As for Karl asking the judge to in essence issue an advisory opinion, lame.

alan markus said...

Just read that Trump has spent $300,000 on radio ads. Millions have been spent by the other candidates (includes PACs). All of Trumps exposure has been media coverage, on-line, and his rallys. He has had over 22 hours of coverage on FOX alone.

Bob Ellison said...

Do judges get Asshole Cards when they're appointed?

Bob Ellison said...

I mean, OK, let's say you've got a judge. It's a person who is supposed to make decisions on the basis of law.

But judges even in local venues, in small issues, keep seeming to think they are gods. There's a joke about a guy in heaven coming across another guy with a stethoscope, and Saint Peter says don't mind him; that's God; sometimes he thinks he's a doctor.

It's much worse with judges. They keep doing crapwork. And SCOTUS justices are the worst of the bunch. It's predictable. They think they're beyond reproach. They're often awful, like Breyer.

clint said...

"cubanbob said...
Trump owns the media. He has done something no Republican has ever done, he made them his bitches. Considering the media is mostly comprised of Democratic Party house organs that is an impressive feat. "

You really think so?

He's definitely pumping them for massive amounts of free attention. And they're using him to paint a picture of Republicans for the Middle-of-the-Road Low Information Voter. And to get viewers. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

Trump's a smart guy. He may have a plan for how to win the general. But his current strategy is all about the primary, and his love of attention. It won't work in the general election. He's *already* running behind Hillary in the polls, and the Media hasn't gone on its six-month blitz of grandma showers and picking out baby names and if-you-question-her-you're-a-big-sexist-pig selling of Hillary Clinton.

Moneyrunner said...

Do judges get Asshole Cards when they're appointed?

Careful, that Lèse majesté and this blog is hosted by a law professor. You may address the Court as Your Asshole-Honor.

Titus said...

Breyer lives by me and is a liberal Cambridge jew.

You can't swing a cat without hitting them in my hood.

tits.

n.n said...

It is conventional legal practice to discriminate among classes of people when there is probable cause (e.g. commonly held principles, national allegiance, group affiliation).

However, the pro-choice doctrine could only be practiced by a quasi-religious cult, pulled out of a penumbra, that denies scientific and self-evident fact (e.g. spontaneous conception is a fantasy), and selective application of basic principles or axioms of morality (e.g. individual dignity, intrinsic value).

Basil said...

Just resign, and opine publicly for the rest of your life. Win, win.

narciso said...

will Justice Breyer, recuse himself, besides this is more like the Immigration Act of 1920, then the internment, which good progressives like FDR and Earl Warren went for,

Dude1394 said...

I watched Andrea Mitchell for a little bit. She supposedly was having two folks talk about ISIS and what to do about them. Two ex and current obama staffers. She then proceeds to talk only about how trump is radicalizing the people who are killing all christians, chopping off their heads, burning them alive, raping them and their children and selling the women for slaves.

She asked them if Obama not doing anything about his red line had any effect. No answer right back to trump.

No wonders trump is doing so well, with "journalists" like that.

aritai said...

With regard to judges, I've worked with a few, attended their Arizona retreats where they have an occasional talk by invited speakers between rounds of golf and lots of down time. Which is ok by me. But unless they are true ascetics who just love the job and their country or community and some do, most think that since we pretend to pay them, then we must expect them to pretend to work , or worse we think it is ok for them to corrupt their work with the same dynamics of members of congress (whose salaries are already too high, yet we cap judge's salaries at that. For a better model check out the foreign equivalent of title 3 appointments. Singapore for one. Or the best city managers here in the U.S who are paid extravagantly and refuse to have a political voice knowing it is not in the interests of the citizens they serve, to say nothing knowing it would destroy their ability to do a competent executive proud of their own work. We could choose to have a legal code similar to the Asian tigers and what we forced on Germany after WW2, where your only appeal is to the legislature to change the law that either you disagree with or was not clearly written. In those jurisdictions business and most citizens only want a quick, consistent and occasionally unbiased decision rather than arguing angels on the head of a pin and all the costs this creates while only serving to benefit the special interests and loudest voices. They leave that to their parliament and their elected representatives to fight it out. The U.S. has a number challenges like this where we’ve prooved over and over again that we can pay more and only get less.