Stephen Breyer - Activist Judges and Judicial Restraint
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2007/07/07/Just... Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer discusses his views on the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint."-----"Democracy and the Court" with Justice Stephen Breyer in conversation with Jeffrey Rosen at the 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival.Some of the most inspired and provocative thinkers, writers, artists, business people, teachers and other leaders drawn from myriad fields and from across the country and around the world all gathered in a single place - to teach, speak, lead, question, and answer at the 2006 Aspen Ideas Festival. Throughout the week, they all interacted with an audience of thoughtful people who stepped back from their day-to-day routines to delve deeply into a world of ideas, thought, and discussion.Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, was born in San Francisco, California, August 15, 1938. He received an A.B. from Stanford University, a B.A. from Magdalen College, Oxford, and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1964 Term, as a Special Assistant to the Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Antitrust, 1965-1967, as an Assistant Special Prosecutor of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973, as Special Counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1974-1975, and as Chief Counsel of the committee, 1979-1980. He was an Assistant Professor, Professor of Law, and Lecturer at Harvard Law School, 1967-1994, a Professor at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 1977-1980, and a Visiting Professor at the College of Law, Sydney, Australia and at the University of Rome. From 1980-1990, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and as its Chief Judge, 1990-1994. He also served as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 1990-1994, and of the United States Sentencing Commission, 1985-1989. President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.
Channel: News & Politics
Uploaded: November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am
Author: ForaTv
Length: 07:09
Rating: 4.73
Views: 2241
Tags: amendments civil conservatives era legal liberals political rights schools scotus segregated segregation supremes warren
Video Comments |
UdallIn72 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
They should have been more specific!
shellieida (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The Constitution is to be interpreted as the Fore Fathers intended!
vergeharget (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Stephen Breyer is one of the most impressive of all nine justices.Itzik Basman
etsneroj (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I agree with you in a moral sense. But in a legal sense, it was not redundant because the Declaration was not a binding legal document (it was a message to Britain). And even it were, the Constitution superceded it with a legally binding recognition of slavery. It took a war and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to give legal effect to the promises in the Declaration.
themole90 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Ok, you got me. Hooya2 should have been more tactful. But I am wrong, it was the declaration, not the constitution itself. But I would submit it should have been crystally clear that blacks/women were to be equal in the eyes of the law. The 14th amendment, while neccessary, was truly redundtant.
etsneroj (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hooya2 is right, despite being the kind of person who uses words like "fucktard." The constitution condones slavery in Art I, Sec.2, Cl.3 (determing that congressional districts will be based on population "by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."). Thank God for the amendment process.
right4us (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
et. I understand it well enough. The wiki ref was for a quick ref, and verifiable info as legit case. The case is clearly defined by where the liberals agree that our govt should have more power to confiscate your property for mutual benefit of others, vs the more conservative who sided with individual empowerment. The liberals won, just ask the homeowners involved. Re Gore vs Bush: I guess multiple recounts are not enough. Just keep going through select areas until you get your desired outcome.
Hooya2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Most of the civilized world has lower crime rates and better education than America does. Maybe stealing some ideas from them might be a good idea?
Hooya2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You're a fucktard. The Declaration of Independence said all men were created equal. It does not say that anywhere in the Constitution.
themole90 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Fuck this. You should not read the document based on what others want. Activist judges are a HUGE problem, republican or democrat. Slavery was always illegal. The constitution clearly said that ALL men are created equally. Government segregation and slavery were willful acts of ignoring what was obvious. The 14th amendment does not nothing that the constitution didn't already do but force those ignoring it to follow it. | |
