{"id":176044,"date":"2015-11-12T12:30:40","date_gmt":"2015-11-12T17:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/webadmin.news-harvard.go-vip.net\/gazette\/gazette\/?p=176044"},"modified":"2019-02-28T13:37:26","modified_gmt":"2019-02-28T18:37:26","slug":"agreeing-to-disagree","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/","title":{"rendered":"Agreeing to disagree"},"content":{"rendered":"<header\n\tclass=\"wp-block-harvard-gazette-article-header alignfull article-header is-style-full-width-text-below centered-image\"\n\tstyle=\" \"\n>\n\t<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"\" height=\"403\" loading=\"eager\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg\" width=\"605\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><p class=\"wp-element-caption--caption\">\u201cI\u2019ve never heard one judge in that room say something really mean, even in a joking way, about another. It doesn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s professional,\u201d Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told students during a talk at Harvard Kennedy School. <\/p><p class=\"wp-element-caption--credit\">Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer<\/p><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\t<div class=\"article-header__content\">\n\t\t\t<a\n\t\t\tclass=\"article-header__category\"\n\t\t\thref=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/\"\n\t\t>\n\t\t\tNation &amp; World\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t<h1 class=\"article-header__title wp-block-heading \">\n\t\tAgreeing to disagree\t<\/h1>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n\t<div class=\"article-header__meta\">\n\t\t<div class=\"wp-block-post-author\">\n\t\t\t<address class=\"wp-block-post-author__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p class=\"author wp-block-post-author__name\">\n\t\tChristina Pazzanese\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"wp-block-post-author__byline\">\n\t\t\tHarvard Staff Writer\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/address>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t<time class=\"article-header__date\" datetime=\"2015-11-12\">\n\t\t\tNovember 12, 2015\t\t<\/time>\n\n\t\t<span class=\"article-header__reading-time\">\n\t\t\t7 min read\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t<h2 class=\"article-header__subheading wp-block-heading\">\n\t\t\tSupreme Court Justice Breyer says rulings are strong but discourse thoughtful\t\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\n<\/header>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-global-padding is-content-justification-center is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n\n\n\t\t<p>From the outside, it can look like life on the U.S. Supreme Court is little more than a succession of sour exchanges between ideological gladiators, a grind that\u2019s more intellectual food fight than dispassionate debate.<\/p>\n<p>But for all of the tough talk and purple prose that can find its way into the court\u2019s most closely watched 5-4 decisions, Associate Justice <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/about\/biographies.aspx\">Stephen Breyer<\/a>, LL.B \u201964, says don\u2019t mistake the rhetoric of political disagreement with personal animosity. This is not an angry bunch who can\u2019t see straight enough to understand the arguments on both sides of an issue.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019ve never heard one judge in that room say something really mean, even in a joking way, about another. It doesn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s professional,\u201d Breyer told students during a talk at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hks.harvard.edu\/\">Harvard Kennedy School<\/a> (HKS) last Friday where he touched on landmark cases like Citizens United, the death penalty, and judicial sentencing reform. It\u2019s only natural, he said, given the court\u2019s complicated task interpreting the \u201cborders\u201d of important but frequently opaque areas of the Constitution like the First or 14th Amendments. \u201cOf course, there are disagreements. Why shouldn\u2019t there be disagreements?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Where court observers like to point to the dramatic, felicitous language of a Justice Antonin Scalia opinion, for example, as proof of smoldering hostilities on the bench, Breyer waved away that notion, saying Scalia just has a writer\u2019s irresistible love for a good turn of phrase. \u201cWe all know that. We don\u2019t mind. \u2026 That\u2019s not a good reason to get angry at somebody personally if you\u2019re sitting in my seat,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>A former professor at both HKS and <a href=\"http:\/\/hls.harvard.edu\/\">Harvard Law School<\/a> (HLS) between 1967 and 1994 before his nomination to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Breyer was at Harvard to discuss his new book, \u201cThe Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,\u201d with David Gergen, public service professor of public leadership and co-director of the <a href=\"http:\/\/cpl.hks.harvard.edu\/\">Center for Public Leadership<\/a> at HKS, and <a href=\"http:\/\/hls.harvard.edu\/faculty\/directory\/10303\/Gertner\">Nancy Gertner<\/a>, a former U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts and now a senior lecturer at HLS.<\/p>\n\r\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<span class=\"embed-youtube\" style=\"text-align:center; display: block;\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"youtube-player\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/lEX2Des_y_E?version=3&#038;rel=1&#038;showsearch=0&#038;showinfo=1&#038;iv_load_policy=1&#038;fs=1&#038;hl=en-US&#038;autohide=2&#038;wmode=transparent\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" style=\"border:0;\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups allow-presentation allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox\"><\/iframe><\/span>\n<\/div>\n<figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\r\n\n<p>Breyer\u2019s book examines how U.S. courts should respond to the new reality of interdependence that globalization has ushered into areas previously thought to be immune, like the law. He encourages judges to become more attuned to legal thinking outside the country and to be more considerate both of the implications of American legal decisions on foreign nations in areas like national security and trade, and of how such international experiences might inform better American legal decisions.<\/p>\n<p>Discussing his disagreement with Justice Clarence Thomas over whether it is appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider and cite decisions made by courts outside this country, Breyer said he understands Thomas\u2019 view that measuring the United States against the standards of other nations ultimately undermines our sovereignty. \u201cHe sees this as protecting certain American values.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But unlike Europe, which has much more homogenous roots that can withstand a more narrowly tailored legal view, this \u201cexperiment\u201d known as American democracy is best protected by drawing from a far wider scope of ideas, Breyer argued.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe are a very motley group of people, everybody under the sun,\u201d he said. \u201cThe whole point of this thing is to say, \u2018Please go look at what concretely this interdependence has meant for our institution and now make a decision: Tell me, isn\u2019t it true, and I hope the answer would be yes, that \u2026 we are more likely to succeed and to continue to succeed with our experiment by paying a lot of attention \u2014 not just a little \u2014 to what goes on beyond our shores.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\r\n<div class=\"wp-block-harvard-gazette-supporting-content alignleft supporting-content\" id=\"supporting-content-f71d910c-94be-4bac-bb0e-e6518a5b994b\">\n\t<div class=\"featured-articles is-post-type-post is-style-grid-list\"  style=\"\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h2 class=\"featured-articles__title wp-block-heading\">More like this<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\t<ul class=\"featured-articles__list \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<li class=\"featured-article \">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<figure class=\"featured-article__image\">\n\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1200\" height=\"750\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/100113_breyer_stephen_163.jpg?resize=1200%2C750\" class=\"attachment-large-landscape-desktop size-large-landscape-desktop\" alt=\"\" \/>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class=\"featured-article__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<a class=\"featured-article__category\" href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/\">\n\t\t\tNation &amp; World\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"featured-article__title wp-block-heading \"><a href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/a-reflective-justice-breyer\/\">A reflective Justice Breyer<\/a><\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"featured-article__meta\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<time class=\"featured-article__date\" datetime=\"2013-10-02\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOctober 2, 2013\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/time>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"featured-article__reading-time\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4 min read\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/li>\n\n\t\t\t\t<\/ul>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>\r\n\n<p>Asked about his dissent in the Citizens United campaign-funding case, Breyer said the case was far tougher \u201cthan people give it credit for.\u201d With no constitutional limit on free speech in politics, the case centered on what should be done about the average person who can only give a modest sum like $20 competing with those who can give $20 million for the attention of politicians and believing that the giver of $20 million will have more influence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat\u2019s a problem,\u201d said Breyer. \u201cI\u2019ve said it\u2019s a First Amendment problem because the purpose of the First Amendment, among other things, is to create a marketplace of ideas\u201d by which the country\u2019s founders meant \u201ca public opinion that could actually have an influence on the policy that emerges from our elected institutions. There has to be a connection, that\u2019s why [James] Madison and the others thought there would be such a connection. Now, when you have five people giving $20 million each or $2 million or $5 million \u2026 and you have hundreds of millions giving $10 each, it\u2019s the big givers who will cut that connection. And even if it weren\u2019t true, people would think it was true, and as long as they think it is true, there won\u2019t be the necessary faith in that institution.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Asked by Gertner about his role in helping to set judicial sentencing guidelines in the 1980s, standards that have come under fire for being overly harsh and unfair, particularly to African-Americans, and that are now being reconsidered by Congress, Breyer defended the sentencing commission\u2019s original intent, which was to close what had been a troubling variation between sentences handed down and the individual whims of judges. The guidelines were supposed to be just that, he said, not hard-and-fast rules that deliberately limited a judge\u2019s discretion. But decades later, there\u2019s rare bipartisan agreement that the guidelines created more problems than they solved.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis was meant to be a movement \u2014 not perfection \u2014 but a \u2026 move toward uniformity,\u201d Breyer said. \u201cIf I had to do it over again, I think I\u2019d do it. I understand it\u2019s unpopular and I understand there are a lot of good criticisms, but I think I\u2019d do it.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>When a student asked whether there\u2019s tension between the individual identity of the justices and their deliberations on cases, Breyer was characteristically even-handed.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI would say no in the sense that whether you are a Latina, whether you are a woman, whether you are an African-American [or] whatever, you have a case in front of you, and these are judges, and they\u2019re going to try to get that case right. So, it\u2019s in that sense, no,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNow, I\u2019m from San Francisco. I have the background I\u2019ve had. I have the life that I\u2019ve had, and that has had a hand in shaping what I think of the [Constitution] and the way it relates to people in America and what our country\u2019s about, which plays a role in interpreting many of these words \u2014 and so have the others. And because life experiences differ and because no two people are alike and because we\u2019re not a group of computers, of course,\u201d Breyer said with a mischievous laugh. \u201cSo I\u2019m tempted to say, \u2018absolutely not\u2019 and \u2018of course!\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Associate Justice Stephen Breyer discusses the dynamics on the Supreme Court, his role and view on sentencing reform and Citizens United, and how American democracy is strengthened by our understanding of the legal thinking of other nations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":105622744,"featured_media":176058,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"gz_ga_pageviews":0,"gz_ga_lastupdated":"","document_color_palette":"crimson","author":"Christina Pazzanese","affiliation":"Harvard Staff Writer","_category_override":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1378],"tags":[7578,8168,8370,10100,15846,15870,18014,24834,30964,32209,32726],"gazette-formats":[],"series":[],"class_list":["post-176044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nation-world","tag-center-for-public-leadership","tag-christina-pazzanese","tag-citizens-united","tag-david-gergen","tag-harvard-kennedy-school","tag-harvard-law-school","tag-institute-of-politics","tag-nancy-gertner","tag-sentencing-reform","tag-stephen-breyer","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v23.0 (Yoast SEO v27.1.1) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Agreeing to disagree &#8212; Harvard Gazette<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Associate Justice Stephen Breyer discusses the dynamics on the Supreme Court, his role and view on sentencing reform and Citizens United, and how American democracy is strengthened by our understanding of the legal thinking of other nations.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Agreeing to disagree &#8212; Harvard Gazette\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Associate Justice Stephen Breyer discusses the dynamics on the Supreme Court, his role and view on sentencing reform and Citizens United, and how American democracy is strengthened by our understanding of the legal thinking of other nations.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Harvard Gazette\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-11-12T17:30:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-28T18:37:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"605\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"403\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"harvardgazette\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"harvardgazette\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b\"},\"headline\":\"Agreeing to disagree\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-11-12T17:30:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-28T18:37:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/\"},\"wordCount\":1237,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Center for Public Leadership\",\"Christina Pazzanese\",\"Citizens United\",\"David Gergen\",\"Harvard Kennedy School\",\"Harvard Law School\",\"Institute of Politics\",\"Nancy Gertner\",\"sentencing reform\",\"Stephen Breyer\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Nation &amp; World\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"copyrightYear\":\"2015\",\"copyrightHolder\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"}},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/\",\"name\":\"Agreeing to disagree &#8212; Harvard Gazette\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-11-12T17:30:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-28T18:37:26+00:00\",\"description\":\"Associate Justice Stephen Breyer discusses the dynamics on the Supreme Court, his role and view on sentencing reform and Citizens United, and how American democracy is strengthened by our understanding of the legal thinking of other nations.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg\",\"width\":605,\"height\":403,\"caption\":\"Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer makes a point while discussing law and policy, as HLS Prof. Nancy Gertner looks on. Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer\"},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/\",\"name\":\"Harvard Gazette\",\"description\":\"Official news from Harvard University covering innovation in teaching, learning, and research\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\",\"name\":\"The Harvard Gazette\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\",\"width\":164,\"height\":64,\"caption\":\"The Harvard Gazette\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b\",\"name\":\"harvardgazette\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Agreeing to disagree &#8212; Harvard Gazette","description":"Associate Justice Stephen Breyer discusses the dynamics on the Supreme Court, his role and view on sentencing reform and Citizens United, and how American democracy is strengthened by our understanding of the legal thinking of other nations.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Agreeing to disagree &#8212; Harvard Gazette","og_description":"Associate Justice Stephen Breyer discusses the dynamics on the Supreme Court, his role and view on sentencing reform and Citizens United, and how American democracy is strengthened by our understanding of the legal thinking of other nations.","og_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/","og_site_name":"Harvard Gazette","article_published_time":"2015-11-12T17:30:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-28T18:37:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":605,"height":403,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"harvardgazette","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/"},"author":{"name":"harvardgazette","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b"},"headline":"Agreeing to disagree","datePublished":"2015-11-12T17:30:40+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-28T18:37:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/"},"wordCount":1237,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg","keywords":["Center for Public Leadership","Christina Pazzanese","Citizens United","David Gergen","Harvard Kennedy School","Harvard Law School","Institute of Politics","Nancy Gertner","sentencing reform","Stephen Breyer","Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Nation &amp; World"],"inLanguage":"en-US","copyrightYear":"2015","copyrightHolder":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"}},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/","name":"Agreeing to disagree &#8212; Harvard Gazette","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg","datePublished":"2015-11-12T17:30:40+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-28T18:37:26+00:00","description":"Associate Justice Stephen Breyer discusses the dynamics on the Supreme Court, his role and view on sentencing reform and Citizens United, and how American democracy is strengthened by our understanding of the legal thinking of other nations.","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg","width":605,"height":403,"caption":"Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer makes a point while discussing law and policy, as HLS Prof. Nancy Gertner looks on. Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer"},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/","name":"Harvard Gazette","description":"Official news from Harvard University covering innovation in teaching, learning, and research","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization","name":"The Harvard Gazette","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg","width":164,"height":64,"caption":"The Harvard Gazette"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b","name":"harvardgazette"}]}},"parsely":{"version":"1.1.0","canonical_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/","smart_links":{"inbound":0,"outbound":0},"traffic_boost_suggestions_count":0,"meta":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","headline":"Agreeing to disagree","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/11\/agreeing-to-disagree\/"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg?w=150","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg"},"articleSection":"Nation &amp; World","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"harvardgazette"}],"creator":["harvardgazette"],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Harvard Gazette","logo":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg"},"keywords":["center for public leadership","christina pazzanese","citizens united","david gergen","harvard kennedy school","harvard law school","institute of politics","nancy gertner","sentencing reform","stephen breyer","supreme court"],"dateCreated":"2015-11-12T17:30:40Z","datePublished":"2015-11-12T17:30:40Z","dateModified":"2019-02-28T18:37:26Z"},"rendered":"<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"wp-parsely-metadata\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"headline\":\"Agreeing to disagree\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/story\\\/2015\\\/11\\\/agreeing-to-disagree\\\/\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/story\\\/2015\\\/11\\\/agreeing-to-disagree\\\/\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2015\\\/11\\\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg?w=150\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2015\\\/11\\\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg\"},\"articleSection\":\"Nation &amp; World\",\"author\":[{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"name\":\"harvardgazette\"}],\"creator\":[\"harvardgazette\"],\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"Harvard Gazette\",\"logo\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\"},\"keywords\":[\"center for public leadership\",\"christina pazzanese\",\"citizens united\",\"david gergen\",\"harvard kennedy school\",\"harvard law school\",\"institute of politics\",\"nancy gertner\",\"sentencing reform\",\"stephen breyer\",\"supreme court\"],\"dateCreated\":\"2015-11-12T17:30:40Z\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-11-12T17:30:40Z\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-28T18:37:26Z\"}<\/script>","tracker_url":"https:\/\/cdn.parsely.com\/keys\/news.harvard.edu\/p.js"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg","has_blocks":true,"block_data":{"0":{"blockName":"harvard-gazette\/article-header","attrs":{"blockColorPalette":"","coloredHeading":"","creditText":"Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer","displayDetails":"","displayTitle":"","categoryId":1378,"mediaAlt":"","mediaCaption":"\u201cI\u2019ve never heard one judge in that room say something really mean, even in a joking way, about another. It doesn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s professional,\u201d Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told students during a talk at Harvard Kennedy School. ","mediaId":176058,"mediaSize":"full","mediaType":"image","mediaUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg","poster":"","title":"Agreeing to disagree","subheading":"Supreme Court Justice Breyer says rulings are strong but discourse thoughtful","centeredImage":true,"className":"is-style-full-width-text-below","mediaHeight":403,"mediaWidth":605,"backgroundFixed":false,"backgroundTone":"light","coloredBackground":false,"displayOverlay":true,"fadeInText":false,"isAmbient":false,"mediaLength":"","mediaPosition":"","posterText":"","titleAbove":false,"useUncroppedImage":false,"lock":[],"metadata":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img alt=\"\" height=\"403\" loading=\"eager\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg\" width=\"605\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><p class=\"wp-element-caption--caption\">\u201cI\u2019ve never heard one judge in that room say something really mean, even in a joking way, about another. It doesn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s professional,\u201d Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told students during a talk at Harvard Kennedy School. <\/p><p class=\"wp-element-caption--credit\">Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer<\/p><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","innerContent":["<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img alt=\"\" height=\"403\" loading=\"eager\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg\" width=\"605\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><p class=\"wp-element-caption--caption\">\u201cI\u2019ve never heard one judge in that room say something really mean, even in a joking way, about another. It doesn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s professional,\u201d Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told students during a talk at Harvard Kennedy School. <\/p><p class=\"wp-element-caption--credit\">Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer<\/p><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n"],"rendered":"<header\n\tclass=\"wp-block-harvard-gazette-article-header alignfull article-header is-style-full-width-text-below centered-image\"\n\tstyle=\" \"\n>\n\t<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img alt=\"\" height=\"403\" loading=\"eager\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/v3a3278-cr2_605.jpg\" width=\"605\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><p class=\"wp-element-caption--caption\">\u201cI\u2019ve never heard one judge in that room say something really mean, even in a joking way, about another. It doesn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s professional,\u201d Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told students during a talk at Harvard Kennedy School. <\/p><p class=\"wp-element-caption--credit\">Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer<\/p><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\t<div class=\"article-header__content\">\n\t\t\t<a\n\t\t\tclass=\"article-header__category\"\n\t\t\thref=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/\"\n\t\t>\n\t\t\tNation &amp; World\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t<h1 class=\"article-header__title wp-block-heading \">\n\t\tAgreeing to disagree\t<\/h1>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n\t<div class=\"article-header__meta\">\n\t\t<div class=\"wp-block-post-author\">\n\t\t\t<address class=\"wp-block-post-author__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p class=\"author wp-block-post-author__name\">\n\t\tChristina Pazzanese\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"wp-block-post-author__byline\">\n\t\t\tHarvard Staff Writer\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/address>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t<time class=\"article-header__date\" datetime=\"2015-11-12\">\n\t\t\tNovember 12, 2015\t\t<\/time>\n\n\t\t<span class=\"article-header__reading-time\">\n\t\t\t7 min read\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t<h2 class=\"article-header__subheading wp-block-heading\">\n\t\t\tSupreme Court Justice Breyer says rulings are strong but discourse thoughtful\t\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\n<\/header>\n"},"2":{"blockName":"core\/group","attrs":{"templateLock":false,"metadata":{"name":"Article content"},"align":"wide","layout":{"type":"constrained","justifyContent":"center"},"tagName":"div","lock":[],"className":"","style":[],"backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","ariaLabel":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[{"blockName":"core\/freeform","attrs":{"content":"","lock":[],"metadata":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\t\t<p>From the outside, it can look like life on the U.S. Supreme Court is little more than a succession of sour exchanges between ideological gladiators, a grind that\u2019s more intellectual food fight than dispassionate debate.<\/p>\n<p>But for all of the tough talk and purple prose that can find its way into the court\u2019s most closely watched 5-4 decisions, Associate Justice <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/about\/biographies.aspx\">Stephen Breyer<\/a>, LL.B \u201964, says don\u2019t mistake the rhetoric of political disagreement with personal animosity. This is not an angry bunch who can\u2019t see straight enough to understand the arguments on both sides of an issue.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019ve never heard one judge in that room say something really mean, even in a joking way, about another. It doesn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s professional,\u201d Breyer told students during a talk at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hks.harvard.edu\/\">Harvard Kennedy School<\/a> (HKS) last Friday where he touched on landmark cases like Citizens United, the death penalty, and judicial sentencing reform. It\u2019s only natural, he said, given the court\u2019s complicated task interpreting the \u201cborders\u201d of important but frequently opaque areas of the Constitution like the First or 14th Amendments. \u201cOf course, there are disagreements. Why shouldn\u2019t there be disagreements?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Where court observers like to point to the dramatic, felicitous language of a Justice Antonin Scalia opinion, for example, as proof of smoldering hostilities on the bench, Breyer waved away that notion, saying Scalia just has a writer\u2019s irresistible love for a good turn of phrase. \u201cWe all know that. We don\u2019t mind. \u2026 That\u2019s not a good reason to get angry at somebody personally if you\u2019re sitting in my seat,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>A former professor at both HKS and <a href=\"http:\/\/hls.harvard.edu\/\">Harvard Law School<\/a> (HLS) between 1967 and 1994 before his nomination to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Breyer was at Harvard to discuss his new book, \u201cThe Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,\u201d with David Gergen, public service professor of public leadership and co-director of the <a href=\"http:\/\/cpl.hks.harvard.edu\/\">Center for Public Leadership<\/a> at HKS, and <a href=\"http:\/\/hls.harvard.edu\/faculty\/directory\/10303\/Gertner\">Nancy Gertner<\/a>, a former U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts and now a senior lecturer at HLS.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n\t\t<p>From the outside, it can look like life on the U.S. Supreme Court is little more than a succession of sour exchanges between ideological gladiators, a grind that\u2019s more intellectual food fight than dispassionate debate.<\/p>\n<p>But for all of the tough talk and purple prose that can find its way into the court\u2019s most closely watched 5-4 decisions, Associate Justice <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/about\/biographies.aspx\">Stephen Breyer<\/a>, LL.B \u201964, says don\u2019t mistake the rhetoric of political disagreement with personal animosity. This is not an angry bunch who can\u2019t see straight enough to understand the arguments on both sides of an issue.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019ve never heard one judge in that room say something really mean, even in a joking way, about another. It doesn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s professional,\u201d Breyer told students during a talk at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hks.harvard.edu\/\">Harvard Kennedy School<\/a> (HKS) last Friday where he touched on landmark cases like Citizens United, the death penalty, and judicial sentencing reform. It\u2019s only natural, he said, given the court\u2019s complicated task interpreting the \u201cborders\u201d of important but frequently opaque areas of the Constitution like the First or 14th Amendments. \u201cOf course, there are disagreements. Why shouldn\u2019t there be disagreements?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Where court observers like to point to the dramatic, felicitous language of a Justice Antonin Scalia opinion, for example, as proof of smoldering hostilities on the bench, Breyer waved away that notion, saying Scalia just has a writer\u2019s irresistible love for a good turn of phrase. \u201cWe all know that. We don\u2019t mind. \u2026 That\u2019s not a good reason to get angry at somebody personally if you\u2019re sitting in my seat,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>A former professor at both HKS and <a href=\"http:\/\/hls.harvard.edu\/\">Harvard Law School<\/a> (HLS) between 1967 and 1994 before his nomination to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Breyer was at Harvard to discuss his new book, \u201cThe Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,\u201d with David Gergen, public service professor of public leadership and co-director of the <a href=\"http:\/\/cpl.hks.harvard.edu\/\">Center for Public Leadership<\/a> at HKS, and <a href=\"http:\/\/hls.harvard.edu\/faculty\/directory\/10303\/Gertner\">Nancy Gertner<\/a>, a former U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts and now a senior lecturer at HLS.<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n\t\t<p>From the outside, it can look like life on the U.S. Supreme Court is little more than a succession of sour exchanges between ideological gladiators, a grind that\u2019s more intellectual food fight than dispassionate debate.<\/p>\n<p>But for all of the tough talk and purple prose that can find its way into the court\u2019s most closely watched 5-4 decisions, Associate Justice <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/about\/biographies.aspx\">Stephen Breyer<\/a>, LL.B \u201964, says don\u2019t mistake the rhetoric of political disagreement with personal animosity. This is not an angry bunch who can\u2019t see straight enough to understand the arguments on both sides of an issue.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019ve never heard one judge in that room say something really mean, even in a joking way, about another. It doesn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s professional,\u201d Breyer told students during a talk at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hks.harvard.edu\/\">Harvard Kennedy School<\/a> (HKS) last Friday where he touched on landmark cases like Citizens United, the death penalty, and judicial sentencing reform. It\u2019s only natural, he said, given the court\u2019s complicated task interpreting the \u201cborders\u201d of important but frequently opaque areas of the Constitution like the First or 14th Amendments. \u201cOf course, there are disagreements. Why shouldn\u2019t there be disagreements?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Where court observers like to point to the dramatic, felicitous language of a Justice Antonin Scalia opinion, for example, as proof of smoldering hostilities on the bench, Breyer waved away that notion, saying Scalia just has a writer\u2019s irresistible love for a good turn of phrase. \u201cWe all know that. We don\u2019t mind. \u2026 That\u2019s not a good reason to get angry at somebody personally if you\u2019re sitting in my seat,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>A former professor at both HKS and <a href=\"http:\/\/hls.harvard.edu\/\">Harvard Law School<\/a> (HLS) between 1967 and 1994 before his nomination to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Breyer was at Harvard to discuss his new book, \u201cThe Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,\u201d with David Gergen, public service professor of public leadership and co-director of the <a href=\"http:\/\/cpl.hks.harvard.edu\/\">Center for Public Leadership<\/a> at HKS, and <a href=\"http:\/\/hls.harvard.edu\/faculty\/directory\/10303\/Gertner\">Nancy Gertner<\/a>, a former U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts and now a senior lecturer at HLS.<\/p>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/embed","attrs":{"url":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=lEX2Des_y_E","type":"video","responsive":true,"providerNameSlug":"youtube","className":"wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio","caption":" ","allowResponsive":true,"previewable":true,"lock":[],"metadata":[],"align":"","style":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=lEX2Des_y_E\n<\/div>\n<figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","innerContent":["\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=lEX2Des_y_E\n<\/div>\n<figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n"],"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=lEX2Des_y_E\n<\/div>\n<figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n"},{"blockName":"core\/freeform","attrs":{"content":"","lock":[],"metadata":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n<p>Breyer\u2019s book examines how U.S. courts should respond to the new reality of interdependence that globalization has ushered into areas previously thought to be immune, like the law. He encourages judges to become more attuned to legal thinking outside the country and to be more considerate both of the implications of American legal decisions on foreign nations in areas like national security and trade, and of how such international experiences might inform better American legal decisions.<\/p>\n<p>Discussing his disagreement with Justice Clarence Thomas over whether it is appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider and cite decisions made by courts outside this country, Breyer said he understands Thomas\u2019 view that measuring the United States against the standards of other nations ultimately undermines our sovereignty. \u201cHe sees this as protecting certain American values.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But unlike Europe, which has much more homogenous roots that can withstand a more narrowly tailored legal view, this \u201cexperiment\u201d known as American democracy is best protected by drawing from a far wider scope of ideas, Breyer argued.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe are a very motley group of people, everybody under the sun,\u201d he said. \u201cThe whole point of this thing is to say, \u2018Please go look at what concretely this interdependence has meant for our institution and now make a decision: Tell me, isn\u2019t it true, and I hope the answer would be yes, that \u2026 we are more likely to succeed and to continue to succeed with our experiment by paying a lot of attention \u2014 not just a little \u2014 to what goes on beyond our shores.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n<p>Breyer\u2019s book examines how U.S. courts should respond to the new reality of interdependence that globalization has ushered into areas previously thought to be immune, like the law. He encourages judges to become more attuned to legal thinking outside the country and to be more considerate both of the implications of American legal decisions on foreign nations in areas like national security and trade, and of how such international experiences might inform better American legal decisions.<\/p>\n<p>Discussing his disagreement with Justice Clarence Thomas over whether it is appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider and cite decisions made by courts outside this country, Breyer said he understands Thomas\u2019 view that measuring the United States against the standards of other nations ultimately undermines our sovereignty. \u201cHe sees this as protecting certain American values.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But unlike Europe, which has much more homogenous roots that can withstand a more narrowly tailored legal view, this \u201cexperiment\u201d known as American democracy is best protected by drawing from a far wider scope of ideas, Breyer argued.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe are a very motley group of people, everybody under the sun,\u201d he said. \u201cThe whole point of this thing is to say, \u2018Please go look at what concretely this interdependence has meant for our institution and now make a decision: Tell me, isn\u2019t it true, and I hope the answer would be yes, that \u2026 we are more likely to succeed and to continue to succeed with our experiment by paying a lot of attention \u2014 not just a little \u2014 to what goes on beyond our shores.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n<p>Breyer\u2019s book examines how U.S. courts should respond to the new reality of interdependence that globalization has ushered into areas previously thought to be immune, like the law. He encourages judges to become more attuned to legal thinking outside the country and to be more considerate both of the implications of American legal decisions on foreign nations in areas like national security and trade, and of how such international experiences might inform better American legal decisions.<\/p>\n<p>Discussing his disagreement with Justice Clarence Thomas over whether it is appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider and cite decisions made by courts outside this country, Breyer said he understands Thomas\u2019 view that measuring the United States against the standards of other nations ultimately undermines our sovereignty. \u201cHe sees this as protecting certain American values.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But unlike Europe, which has much more homogenous roots that can withstand a more narrowly tailored legal view, this \u201cexperiment\u201d known as American democracy is best protected by drawing from a far wider scope of ideas, Breyer argued.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe are a very motley group of people, everybody under the sun,\u201d he said. \u201cThe whole point of this thing is to say, \u2018Please go look at what concretely this interdependence has meant for our institution and now make a decision: Tell me, isn\u2019t it true, and I hope the answer would be yes, that \u2026 we are more likely to succeed and to continue to succeed with our experiment by paying a lot of attention \u2014 not just a little \u2014 to what goes on beyond our shores.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n"},{"blockName":"harvard-gazette\/supporting-content","attrs":{"id":"f71d910c-94be-4bac-bb0e-e6518a5b994b","align":"left","allowedBlocks":[],"style":[],"lock":[],"metadata":[],"className":""},"innerBlocks":[{"blockName":"harvard-gazette\/featured-articles","attrs":{"autoGenerate":false,"className":"is-style-grid-list","inPostContent":true,"numberOfPosts":1,"postIds":[147461],"showExcerpt":false,"title":"More like this","category":"","carouselOnDesktop":false,"isEditor":false,"linkText":"See all book reviews","passPostIds":false,"postOverrides":[],"postTypeOverride":"post","receivePostIds":false,"series":"","showCategory":true,"showDate":true,"gridColumns":2,"showDropShadow":false,"showFormat":true,"showImage":true,"showImageZoom":false,"showSeries":true,"showReadMore":true,"showReadTime":true,"tags":[],"useCurrentTerm":false,"lock":[],"metadata":[],"align":"","style":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[],"rendered":"\n\t<div class=\"featured-articles is-post-type-post is-style-grid-list\"  style=\"\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h2 class=\"featured-articles__title wp-block-heading\">More like this<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\t<ul class=\"featured-articles__list \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<li class=\"featured-article \">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<figure class=\"featured-article__image\">\n\t\t\t\t<img width=\"1200\" height=\"750\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/100113_breyer_stephen_163.jpg?resize=1200%2C750\" class=\"attachment-large-landscape-desktop size-large-landscape-desktop\" alt=\"\" loading=\"lazy\" \/>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class=\"featured-article__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<a class=\"featured-article__category\" href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/\">\n\t\t\tNation &amp; World\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"featured-article__title wp-block-heading \"><a href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/a-reflective-justice-breyer\/\">A reflective Justice Breyer<\/a><\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"featured-article__meta\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<time class=\"featured-article__date\" datetime=\"2013-10-02\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOctober 2, 2013\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/time>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"featured-article__reading-time\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4 min read\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/li>\n\n\t\t\t\t<\/ul>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t"}],"innerHTML":"<div class=\"wp-block-harvard-gazette-supporting-content alignleft supporting-content\" id=\"supporting-content-f71d910c-94be-4bac-bb0e-e6518a5b994b\"><\/div>","innerContent":["<div class=\"wp-block-harvard-gazette-supporting-content alignleft supporting-content\" id=\"supporting-content-f71d910c-94be-4bac-bb0e-e6518a5b994b\">","<\/div>"],"rendered":"<div class=\"wp-block-harvard-gazette-supporting-content alignleft supporting-content\" id=\"supporting-content-f71d910c-94be-4bac-bb0e-e6518a5b994b\">\n\t<div class=\"featured-articles is-post-type-post is-style-grid-list\"  style=\"\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h2 class=\"featured-articles__title wp-block-heading\">More like this<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\t<ul class=\"featured-articles__list \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<li class=\"featured-article \">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<figure class=\"featured-article__image\">\n\t\t\t\t<img width=\"1200\" height=\"750\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/100113_breyer_stephen_163.jpg?resize=1200%2C750\" class=\"attachment-large-landscape-desktop size-large-landscape-desktop\" alt=\"\" loading=\"lazy\" \/>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class=\"featured-article__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<a class=\"featured-article__category\" href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/\">\n\t\t\tNation &amp; World\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"featured-article__title wp-block-heading \"><a href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/a-reflective-justice-breyer\/\">A reflective Justice Breyer<\/a><\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"featured-article__meta\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<time class=\"featured-article__date\" datetime=\"2013-10-02\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOctober 2, 2013\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/time>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"featured-article__reading-time\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4 min read\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/li>\n\n\t\t\t\t<\/ul>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>"},{"blockName":"core\/freeform","attrs":{"content":"","lock":[],"metadata":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n<p>Asked about his dissent in the Citizens United campaign-funding case, Breyer said the case was far tougher \u201cthan people give it credit for.\u201d With no constitutional limit on free speech in politics, the case centered on what should be done about the average person who can only give a modest sum like $20 competing with those who can give $20 million for the attention of politicians and believing that the giver of $20 million will have more influence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat\u2019s a problem,\u201d said Breyer. \u201cI\u2019ve said it\u2019s a First Amendment problem because the purpose of the First Amendment, among other things, is to create a marketplace of ideas\u201d by which the country\u2019s founders meant \u201ca public opinion that could actually have an influence on the policy that emerges from our elected institutions. There has to be a connection, that\u2019s why [James] Madison and the others thought there would be such a connection. Now, when you have five people giving $20 million each or $2 million or $5 million \u2026 and you have hundreds of millions giving $10 each, it\u2019s the big givers who will cut that connection. And even if it weren\u2019t true, people would think it was true, and as long as they think it is true, there won\u2019t be the necessary faith in that institution.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Asked by Gertner about his role in helping to set judicial sentencing guidelines in the 1980s, standards that have come under fire for being overly harsh and unfair, particularly to African-Americans, and that are now being reconsidered by Congress, Breyer defended the sentencing commission\u2019s original intent, which was to close what had been a troubling variation between sentences handed down and the individual whims of judges. The guidelines were supposed to be just that, he said, not hard-and-fast rules that deliberately limited a judge\u2019s discretion. But decades later, there\u2019s rare bipartisan agreement that the guidelines created more problems than they solved.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis was meant to be a movement \u2014 not perfection \u2014 but a \u2026 move toward uniformity,\u201d Breyer said. \u201cIf I had to do it over again, I think I\u2019d do it. I understand it\u2019s unpopular and I understand there are a lot of good criticisms, but I think I\u2019d do it.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>When a student asked whether there\u2019s tension between the individual identity of the justices and their deliberations on cases, Breyer was characteristically even-handed.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI would say no in the sense that whether you are a Latina, whether you are a woman, whether you are an African-American [or] whatever, you have a case in front of you, and these are judges, and they\u2019re going to try to get that case right. So, it\u2019s in that sense, no,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNow, I\u2019m from San Francisco. I have the background I\u2019ve had. I have the life that I\u2019ve had, and that has had a hand in shaping what I think of the [Constitution] and the way it relates to people in America and what our country\u2019s about, which plays a role in interpreting many of these words \u2014 and so have the others. And because life experiences differ and because no two people are alike and because we\u2019re not a group of computers, of course,\u201d Breyer said with a mischievous laugh. \u201cSo I\u2019m tempted to say, \u2018absolutely not\u2019 and \u2018of course!\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n<p>Asked about his dissent in the Citizens United campaign-funding case, Breyer said the case was far tougher \u201cthan people give it credit for.\u201d With no constitutional limit on free speech in politics, the case centered on what should be done about the average person who can only give a modest sum like $20 competing with those who can give $20 million for the attention of politicians and believing that the giver of $20 million will have more influence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat\u2019s a problem,\u201d said Breyer. \u201cI\u2019ve said it\u2019s a First Amendment problem because the purpose of the First Amendment, among other things, is to create a marketplace of ideas\u201d by which the country\u2019s founders meant \u201ca public opinion that could actually have an influence on the policy that emerges from our elected institutions. There has to be a connection, that\u2019s why [James] Madison and the others thought there would be such a connection. Now, when you have five people giving $20 million each or $2 million or $5 million \u2026 and you have hundreds of millions giving $10 each, it\u2019s the big givers who will cut that connection. And even if it weren\u2019t true, people would think it was true, and as long as they think it is true, there won\u2019t be the necessary faith in that institution.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Asked by Gertner about his role in helping to set judicial sentencing guidelines in the 1980s, standards that have come under fire for being overly harsh and unfair, particularly to African-Americans, and that are now being reconsidered by Congress, Breyer defended the sentencing commission\u2019s original intent, which was to close what had been a troubling variation between sentences handed down and the individual whims of judges. The guidelines were supposed to be just that, he said, not hard-and-fast rules that deliberately limited a judge\u2019s discretion. But decades later, there\u2019s rare bipartisan agreement that the guidelines created more problems than they solved.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis was meant to be a movement \u2014 not perfection \u2014 but a \u2026 move toward uniformity,\u201d Breyer said. \u201cIf I had to do it over again, I think I\u2019d do it. I understand it\u2019s unpopular and I understand there are a lot of good criticisms, but I think I\u2019d do it.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>When a student asked whether there\u2019s tension between the individual identity of the justices and their deliberations on cases, Breyer was characteristically even-handed.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI would say no in the sense that whether you are a Latina, whether you are a woman, whether you are an African-American [or] whatever, you have a case in front of you, and these are judges, and they\u2019re going to try to get that case right. So, it\u2019s in that sense, no,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNow, I\u2019m from San Francisco. I have the background I\u2019ve had. I have the life that I\u2019ve had, and that has had a hand in shaping what I think of the [Constitution] and the way it relates to people in America and what our country\u2019s about, which plays a role in interpreting many of these words \u2014 and so have the others. And because life experiences differ and because no two people are alike and because we\u2019re not a group of computers, of course,\u201d Breyer said with a mischievous laugh. \u201cSo I\u2019m tempted to say, \u2018absolutely not\u2019 and \u2018of course!\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n<p>Asked about his dissent in the Citizens United campaign-funding case, Breyer said the case was far tougher \u201cthan people give it credit for.\u201d With no constitutional limit on free speech in politics, the case centered on what should be done about the average person who can only give a modest sum like $20 competing with those who can give $20 million for the attention of politicians and believing that the giver of $20 million will have more influence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat\u2019s a problem,\u201d said Breyer. \u201cI\u2019ve said it\u2019s a First Amendment problem because the purpose of the First Amendment, among other things, is to create a marketplace of ideas\u201d by which the country\u2019s founders meant \u201ca public opinion that could actually have an influence on the policy that emerges from our elected institutions. There has to be a connection, that\u2019s why [James] Madison and the others thought there would be such a connection. Now, when you have five people giving $20 million each or $2 million or $5 million \u2026 and you have hundreds of millions giving $10 each, it\u2019s the big givers who will cut that connection. And even if it weren\u2019t true, people would think it was true, and as long as they think it is true, there won\u2019t be the necessary faith in that institution.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Asked by Gertner about his role in helping to set judicial sentencing guidelines in the 1980s, standards that have come under fire for being overly harsh and unfair, particularly to African-Americans, and that are now being reconsidered by Congress, Breyer defended the sentencing commission\u2019s original intent, which was to close what had been a troubling variation between sentences handed down and the individual whims of judges. The guidelines were supposed to be just that, he said, not hard-and-fast rules that deliberately limited a judge\u2019s discretion. But decades later, there\u2019s rare bipartisan agreement that the guidelines created more problems than they solved.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis was meant to be a movement \u2014 not perfection \u2014 but a \u2026 move toward uniformity,\u201d Breyer said. \u201cIf I had to do it over again, I think I\u2019d do it. I understand it\u2019s unpopular and I understand there are a lot of good criticisms, but I think I\u2019d do it.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>When a student asked whether there\u2019s tension between the individual identity of the justices and their deliberations on cases, Breyer was characteristically even-handed.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI would say no in the sense that whether you are a Latina, whether you are a woman, whether you are an African-American [or] whatever, you have a case in front of you, and these are judges, and they\u2019re going to try to get that case right. So, it\u2019s in that sense, no,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNow, I\u2019m from San Francisco. I have the background I\u2019ve had. I have the life that I\u2019ve had, and that has had a hand in shaping what I think of the [Constitution] and the way it relates to people in America and what our country\u2019s about, which plays a role in interpreting many of these words \u2014 and so have the others. And because life experiences differ and because no two people are alike and because we\u2019re not a group of computers, of course,\u201d Breyer said with a mischievous laugh. \u201cSo I\u2019m tempted to say, \u2018absolutely not\u2019 and \u2018of course!\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n"}],"innerHTML":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide\">\n\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\n<\/div>\n","innerContent":["\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide\">\n\n","\r\n","\n\r\n","\r\n","\r\n","\n\n<\/div>\n"],"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-global-padding is-content-justification-center is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n\n\n\t\t<p>From the outside, it can look like life on the U.S. Supreme Court is little more than a succession of sour exchanges between ideological gladiators, a grind that\u2019s more intellectual food fight than dispassionate debate.<\/p>\n<p>But for all of the tough talk and purple prose that can find its way into the court\u2019s most closely watched 5-4 decisions, Associate Justice <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/about\/biographies.aspx\">Stephen Breyer<\/a>, LL.B \u201964, says don\u2019t mistake the rhetoric of political disagreement with personal animosity. This is not an angry bunch who can\u2019t see straight enough to understand the arguments on both sides of an issue.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019ve never heard one judge in that room say something really mean, even in a joking way, about another. It doesn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s professional,\u201d Breyer told students during a talk at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hks.harvard.edu\/\">Harvard Kennedy School<\/a> (HKS) last Friday where he touched on landmark cases like Citizens United, the death penalty, and judicial sentencing reform. It\u2019s only natural, he said, given the court\u2019s complicated task interpreting the \u201cborders\u201d of important but frequently opaque areas of the Constitution like the First or 14th Amendments. \u201cOf course, there are disagreements. Why shouldn\u2019t there be disagreements?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Where court observers like to point to the dramatic, felicitous language of a Justice Antonin Scalia opinion, for example, as proof of smoldering hostilities on the bench, Breyer waved away that notion, saying Scalia just has a writer\u2019s irresistible love for a good turn of phrase. \u201cWe all know that. We don\u2019t mind. \u2026 That\u2019s not a good reason to get angry at somebody personally if you\u2019re sitting in my seat,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>A former professor at both HKS and <a href=\"http:\/\/hls.harvard.edu\/\">Harvard Law School<\/a> (HLS) between 1967 and 1994 before his nomination to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Breyer was at Harvard to discuss his new book, \u201cThe Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,\u201d with David Gergen, public service professor of public leadership and co-director of the <a href=\"http:\/\/cpl.hks.harvard.edu\/\">Center for Public Leadership<\/a> at HKS, and <a href=\"http:\/\/hls.harvard.edu\/faculty\/directory\/10303\/Gertner\">Nancy Gertner<\/a>, a former U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts and now a senior lecturer at HLS.<\/p>\n\r\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=lEX2Des_y_E\n<\/div>\n<figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\r\n\n<p>Breyer\u2019s book examines how U.S. courts should respond to the new reality of interdependence that globalization has ushered into areas previously thought to be immune, like the law. He encourages judges to become more attuned to legal thinking outside the country and to be more considerate both of the implications of American legal decisions on foreign nations in areas like national security and trade, and of how such international experiences might inform better American legal decisions.<\/p>\n<p>Discussing his disagreement with Justice Clarence Thomas over whether it is appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider and cite decisions made by courts outside this country, Breyer said he understands Thomas\u2019 view that measuring the United States against the standards of other nations ultimately undermines our sovereignty. \u201cHe sees this as protecting certain American values.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But unlike Europe, which has much more homogenous roots that can withstand a more narrowly tailored legal view, this \u201cexperiment\u201d known as American democracy is best protected by drawing from a far wider scope of ideas, Breyer argued.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe are a very motley group of people, everybody under the sun,\u201d he said. \u201cThe whole point of this thing is to say, \u2018Please go look at what concretely this interdependence has meant for our institution and now make a decision: Tell me, isn\u2019t it true, and I hope the answer would be yes, that \u2026 we are more likely to succeed and to continue to succeed with our experiment by paying a lot of attention \u2014 not just a little \u2014 to what goes on beyond our shores.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\r\n<div class=\"wp-block-harvard-gazette-supporting-content alignleft supporting-content\" id=\"supporting-content-f71d910c-94be-4bac-bb0e-e6518a5b994b\">\n\t<div class=\"featured-articles is-post-type-post is-style-grid-list\"  style=\"\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h2 class=\"featured-articles__title wp-block-heading\">More like this<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\t<ul class=\"featured-articles__list \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<li class=\"featured-article \">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<figure class=\"featured-article__image\">\n\t\t\t\t<img width=\"1200\" height=\"750\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/100113_breyer_stephen_163.jpg?resize=1200%2C750\" class=\"attachment-large-landscape-desktop size-large-landscape-desktop\" alt=\"\" loading=\"lazy\" \/>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class=\"featured-article__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<a class=\"featured-article__category\" href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/\">\n\t\t\tNation &amp; World\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"featured-article__title wp-block-heading \"><a href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/a-reflective-justice-breyer\/\">A reflective Justice Breyer<\/a><\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"featured-article__meta\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<time class=\"featured-article__date\" datetime=\"2013-10-02\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOctober 2, 2013\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/time>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"featured-article__reading-time\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4 min read\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/li>\n\n\t\t\t\t<\/ul>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>\r\n\n<p>Asked about his dissent in the Citizens United campaign-funding case, Breyer said the case was far tougher \u201cthan people give it credit for.\u201d With no constitutional limit on free speech in politics, the case centered on what should be done about the average person who can only give a modest sum like $20 competing with those who can give $20 million for the attention of politicians and believing that the giver of $20 million will have more influence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat\u2019s a problem,\u201d said Breyer. \u201cI\u2019ve said it\u2019s a First Amendment problem because the purpose of the First Amendment, among other things, is to create a marketplace of ideas\u201d by which the country\u2019s founders meant \u201ca public opinion that could actually have an influence on the policy that emerges from our elected institutions. There has to be a connection, that\u2019s why [James] Madison and the others thought there would be such a connection. Now, when you have five people giving $20 million each or $2 million or $5 million \u2026 and you have hundreds of millions giving $10 each, it\u2019s the big givers who will cut that connection. And even if it weren\u2019t true, people would think it was true, and as long as they think it is true, there won\u2019t be the necessary faith in that institution.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Asked by Gertner about his role in helping to set judicial sentencing guidelines in the 1980s, standards that have come under fire for being overly harsh and unfair, particularly to African-Americans, and that are now being reconsidered by Congress, Breyer defended the sentencing commission\u2019s original intent, which was to close what had been a troubling variation between sentences handed down and the individual whims of judges. The guidelines were supposed to be just that, he said, not hard-and-fast rules that deliberately limited a judge\u2019s discretion. But decades later, there\u2019s rare bipartisan agreement that the guidelines created more problems than they solved.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis was meant to be a movement \u2014 not perfection \u2014 but a \u2026 move toward uniformity,\u201d Breyer said. \u201cIf I had to do it over again, I think I\u2019d do it. I understand it\u2019s unpopular and I understand there are a lot of good criticisms, but I think I\u2019d do it.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>When a student asked whether there\u2019s tension between the individual identity of the justices and their deliberations on cases, Breyer was characteristically even-handed.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI would say no in the sense that whether you are a Latina, whether you are a woman, whether you are an African-American [or] whatever, you have a case in front of you, and these are judges, and they\u2019re going to try to get that case right. So, it\u2019s in that sense, no,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNow, I\u2019m from San Francisco. I have the background I\u2019ve had. I have the life that I\u2019ve had, and that has had a hand in shaping what I think of the [Constitution] and the way it relates to people in America and what our country\u2019s about, which plays a role in interpreting many of these words \u2014 and so have the others. And because life experiences differ and because no two people are alike and because we\u2019re not a group of computers, of course,\u201d Breyer said with a mischievous laugh. \u201cSo I\u2019m tempted to say, \u2018absolutely not\u2019 and \u2018of course!\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n"}},"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":347748,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2022\/09\/associate-justice-breyer-offers-advice-on-being-on-losing-side\/","url_meta":{"origin":176044,"position":0},"title":"Breyer offers advice on being on losing side","author":"harvardgazette","date":"September 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In his first Harvard event since retiring from the Supreme Court in June, former Associate Justice Stephen Breyer spoke to first-year students at Harvard Law School on Friday about his experiences on the bench and what he learned working for Sen. Ted Kennedy.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Nation &amp; World&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Nation &amp; World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Retired Supreme Court of the United States Justice Stephen Breyer","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/090922_Justice_Breyer_248.jpeg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/090922_Justice_Breyer_248.jpeg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/090922_Justice_Breyer_248.jpeg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/090922_Justice_Breyer_248.jpeg?resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":341435,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2022\/04\/former-clerks-discuss-stephen-breyers-impact\/","url_meta":{"origin":176044,"position":1},"title":"Long shadow of Stephen Breyer","author":"Lian Parsons","date":"April 7, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Four of Justice Stephen Breyer\u2019s former clerks discuss his service on the bench and how his departure will shape the court.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Nation &amp; World&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Nation &amp; World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Stephen Breyer.","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/110515_Breyer_065_2500.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/110515_Breyer_065_2500.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/110515_Breyer_065_2500.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/110515_Breyer_065_2500.jpg?resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":147461,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/a-reflective-justice-breyer\/","url_meta":{"origin":176044,"position":2},"title":"A reflective Justice Breyer","author":"harvardgazette","date":"October 2, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Stephen Breyer, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, visited Harvard Law School to celebrate his 20th anniversary on the judicial body and to chat with students and Dean Martha Minow.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Nation &amp; World&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Nation &amp; World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/100113_breyer_stephen_163.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/100113_breyer_stephen_163.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/100113_breyer_stephen_163.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":43696,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2004\/11\/stephen-g-breyer-associate-justice-of-u-s-supreme-court-is-speaker\/","url_meta":{"origin":176044,"position":3},"title":"Stephen G. Breyer, associate justice of U.S. Supreme Court, is speaker","author":"gazetteimport","date":"November 11, 2004","format":false,"excerpt":"Stephen G. Breyer, associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, will deliver this years Tanner Lectures on Human Values Nov. 17, 18, and 19.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Campus &amp; Community&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Campus &amp; Community","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/campus-community\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Breyer","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2004\/11\/breyer-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":43794,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2004\/12\/the-constitution-judged-by-breyer\/","url_meta":{"origin":176044,"position":4},"title":"The Constitution judged by Breyer","author":"gazetteimport","date":"December 2, 2004","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Stephen Breyer delivered this years Tanner Lectures on Human Values, focusing on those aspects of the Constitution that promote an active, participatory form of liberty rather than simply safeguarding the rights of individuals. Says Breyer, The Constitution is about creating institutions in which people will\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Campus &amp; Community&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Campus &amp; Community","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/campus-community\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Breyer","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2004\/12\/18-tanner3-450-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":44867,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2005\/09\/across-the-pond-comparisonslaw-school-dean-elena-kagan-above-left-moderates-a-discussion-among-the-right-honourable-the-lord-scott-of-foscote-above-center-supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-ab\/","url_meta":{"origin":176044,"position":5},"title":"Across-the-pond comparisons","author":"gazetteimport","date":"September 29, 2005","format":false,"excerpt":"Law School Dean Elena Kagan (above left) moderates a discussion among The Right Honourable The Lord Scott of Foscote (above center), Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (above right), Justice Antonin Scalia (below right), and The Right Honourable The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (below, second from right). The jurists talked about\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Campus &amp; Community&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Campus &amp; Community","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/campus-community\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176044","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/105622744"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=176044"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176044\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":266170,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176044\/revisions\/266170"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/176058"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176044"},{"taxonomy":"format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gazette-formats?post=176044"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=176044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}