September 15, 2010

Tonight on Larry King Live!

Posted: 07:00 PM ET

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer!

Justice Stephen Breyer on what happens

behind the Supreme Court’s closed doors.

It’s a rare look inside!

And, why he thinks the court was wrong

in the landmark Bush v. Gore decision!


Weigh in below!

Filed under: Larry King Live • Supreme Court

Share this on:
Cajazz76:24:8   September 15th, 2010 7:30 pm ET

Absolutely, allow cameras inside the Supreme Court because their decisions, faux pas, snorts, whistles, and all, are at the heart of our justice system. Their decisions affect the nation much more than the usual civil and criminal cases that are heard across the courts system of this country. It never made sense when cameras were allowed in Congress, that the Supreme Court would dis-allow them... Justice, meted at the hands of the Supreme Court judges, may appear blind to bias and political influence, but as often as the entire population is affected by their usual 5-4 decisions, it is justice in secret as the normal judiciary procedure, and that is not acceptable.

As for Justice Breyer's opinion on the Bush-Gore vote count debacle in Florida, I haven't yet read his book so I'll hide and watch on LKL Tonight. I can't imagine anything revelatory or spellbinding in his opinion, however...caj

Mark   September 15th, 2010 9:04 pm ET

Allow camera's in the Supreme Court room since their decisions do impact and influence the entire civilized territory of the United States of America. Every tax paying citizen will be affected most likely by any supreme court decisions so therefore it should be a humanitarian right to witness and behold what is being passed as law in our great land.

CindyM   September 15th, 2010 9:09 pm ET

I do not think there should be any cameras inside the Supreme Court. I prefer the justices be themselves during the most serious rulings for our nation; no way would that be the case if cameras were present. Enough reality TV; so no thanks.

John C. Howery   September 15th, 2010 9:09 pm ET

There is an Indian (Native American) uprising in the making; in Warroad, Minnesota over a centuries old treaty signed by Theadore Roosevelt in 1905. For further details please contact: Donald Kakaygeesick in Warroad.

Christopher   September 15th, 2010 9:13 pm ET

My professor at Indiana University Dr. David Weiden has written a book on the secrecy of the court. Why does the court rely so heavily upon keeping their process of decision making secret, especially in light of your concerns that few Americans understand or comprehend the court?

stephen   September 15th, 2010 9:14 pm ET

Yes we should have cams, it would be nice to see what they do all day with tax payers dollars, ie,the {regulator fokes would like to know how Washington is wasting more of our hard earned tax dollars


john doe   September 15th, 2010 9:15 pm ET


Joyce Roberta "JR" Miller-Alper, Ed.S   September 15th, 2010 9:16 pm ET

I am a teacher of civics/government at a high school for forty years and at a junior college for six. I have won awards teaching activism as well as ideas. I just completed writing a virtual course in the subject.

But although it is a required course in Texas, it is math and science that is emphasized. Stipends are given in those fields, but teachers who work with the Constitution, who encourage students to vote and to express their ideas are not considered of equal importance.

Texas has a statewide test for US history but not for government. Many private schools don;t require the course. Are we afraid to teach students how to THINK for themselves.

Listen to Richard Dreyfus speak of civic virtue. Without understanding, we get what we have now-screaming, strident dissent. That is worse than not understanding who is on the Court. We must change the emphasis in this country.

I will keep teaching civics as I have a passion for it even if I am the last person doing it!

cheyenne   September 15th, 2010 9:16 pm ET

ABSOLUTELY!!! Everything now seems to be done behind closed doors/ When the decisions are made THEN "we the people are told". We are losing our voice in the law making process. Cameras should be in the Supreme Court so we can have transparency in at least one branch of the government.

Dave Cavero   September 15th, 2010 9:27 pm ET

What are the citizenship requirements to be a supreme court justice?

christine   September 15th, 2010 9:27 pm ET

Yes, it gives the average person insight into how the Supreme Court bases its judgments and helps put everything into perspective when dealing with a serious situation.

Steve Lawson   September 15th, 2010 9:27 pm ET

Why are the Justices picked by the President and confirmed by the Senate? I did not understand Justice Breyer's answer to this question.

dennis hooten   September 15th, 2010 9:29 pm ET

Yes it was remarkable that the losers in the decision Bush vs.Gore did not express their disappointment with voilence. But, do you think anyone could say the same thing if the decision had resulted in an election victory for Al Gore?

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ   September 15th, 2010 9:32 pm ET

I am an attorney who brought several cases to the Supreme Court. I believe that cameras are a necessity, as today there is a disconnect and distrust of the government, particularly the federal courts. Justice Bryer stated that Bush v Gore was the most important and most difficult case for him. What will it take for the court to hear the question of Obama's eligibility in light of the fact that 85% of Americans want to hear the case (according to Pew and AOL) and due to the fact that experts show that Obama's SS number was issued to another individual in /CT and he never provided a long form Birth Certificate with the name of the doctor and hospital

teresa nasif   September 15th, 2010 9:33 pm ET

What does Justice Breyer think of "The Nine", the book that for the first time took a look at behind-the-scenes at the Supreme Court?

Janice   September 15th, 2010 9:33 pm ET

If the Equal Rights Amendment were to be passed, could we inforce equality for the rights of individuals "not to be" with the same jurisdiction and power as given to the rights "to allow?"
Example: Doesn't a person have an equal right not to be exposed to music in public as the person who has the right to listen to loud rap music? Why isn't it enforced that the individual has to wear earphones or listen at volume that others do not have to be exposed to their choices?

There is a section in the supermarkets for publications. Why aren't all the "trash" papers put in that section rather than at the cash register check-outs where all shoppers have to be exposed to their freedoms of writing trash?

Oren Rivers   September 15th, 2010 9:33 pm ET

What a great proponent of the Supreme Court and decision making at the highest level. My view of the court just grew about 100% after hearing Justice Breyer on Larry King Live! Makes me want to read the book.

Phil Greis   September 15th, 2010 9:35 pm ET

I believe that all branches of government are public and therefore television cameras must be allowed in the Supreme Court of the United States.

vic nashville tn   September 15th, 2010 9:37 pm ET

All these time I didn’t pay attention to supreme court here after I will

amanda zimmerman   September 15th, 2010 9:37 pm ET

This is the best show LKing has ever had. I was involved in political Washington for over 25 years. I'm obviously writing about the Associate Justice.

Liz Carter of Georgia   September 15th, 2010 9:40 pm ET

Mr King, I'm enjoying your interview with SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BREYER. I heard him say that no decision is ever made totally or 100% cerebrally; emotional feelings of the heart , the state and feel of the nation, and several other facets and precedents are considered. Yet, when a potential candidate is being screened for the job and questioned by senators, it seems the BIG QUESTION that the person has to answer is, will they be making their decisions by the letter of the law only, and no other factors!?!

Cathy Anderson   September 15th, 2010 9:44 pm ET

In Bush vs. Gore, why didn't the Court reject the case and send it to the House of Representatives (as directed by the Constitution)?

Dr. Paul Palm   September 15th, 2010 9:46 pm ET

Wrong blog question. The #1 issue is amending the U.S. Constitution to re-write the electoral college. It's original purpose was to overcome the lack of technology. We now have the means to count every vote, giving every registered voter an equal say. With respect, Justice Breyer's two arguments are not valid. Number 1, his argument that smaller states will lose their current disproportionate power in presidential elections is EXACTLY what must be removed. Number 2, having to amend the Constitution has been done before. Everyone knows it's difficult. It's intentionally difficult. it was planned to be amended, but not planned to be so difficult.

P.S. The method of amending the Constitution itself needs to be amended. Ask him about that Larry.

Michael Armstrong Sr.   September 15th, 2010 9:50 pm ET

Ask the Justice about his feelings on allowing just some Sharia law .

anthony vallis   September 15th, 2010 9:51 pm ET

WOW!! To bad your political system doesen't have the same take on things as your the justice system. We all have certain oponions, but its time to take politics out, and consider the good for all.

Rick   September 15th, 2010 9:53 pm ET

Yes, cameras should be allowed in so everyone can see what the past looks like.

Hank Pugh   September 15th, 2010 9:55 pm ET


Hello Larry,
I would like to asked the justice Breyer is there a attitude in our country similar to 1784 when Thomas Jefferson
Initiated the Congressional ban on slavery in all federal lands in 1784 (his effort to extend the act to the 13 states lost by only one vote)?

Hank Pugh

joan bashaw   September 15th, 2010 9:56 pm ET

You are my fav I watched you on c-span and then I watched the rerun.
You are not only a good speaker you are a grreat teacher

JOHN JAY   September 15th, 2010 9:58 pm ET


RH   September 15th, 2010 10:00 pm ET

I see absolutely no good reason to not have cameras in the supreme court. Everyone should have access to what is going on in the supreme court, and justices should act the same regardless of who is watching. Their job is to interpret the law and its effects–that is bipartisan and morally neutral.

Karen Deitrick   September 15th, 2010 10:01 pm ET

I disagree with cameras in the Supreme Court. At any time we can go in and take a seat to hear a case. Having cameras in the Court will politicize the process and soon every case would become a media sound bite. Law would be lost to media pressure.

Janie Shoss   September 15th, 2010 10:02 pm ET

One of the best programs you have ever had.

The auroa of the Supreme Court has always been unknown and unapproachable to me.
I respect the instituion and hold the Supreme Court with great honor in our democracy.

Justice Breyer brought iit alive for me. Thank you to you both.

Janie Shoss

Thomas Brennan   September 15th, 2010 10:13 pm ET

Your interview with Justice Bryer was excellent. I think it is important that we understand the character of the person behind Court decisions in a way that the Kagan hearings did not allow. Please try to get similar interviews with Roberts, Alito and/or Scalia. I may not agree with all of their decisions ( and I don't actually read the Court decisions) but I would like to know more about the men who make those decisions.

Cajazz76:24:8   September 15th, 2010 10:16 pm ET

Karen Deitrick

Meet you on the steps of the court tomorrow morning and buy you coffee before the opening gavel slams softly on one of their thumbs. The entire nation should have the right, as in Congress, to view the conduct of the less...Unless. Les Moore is on trial again...then I'll set up a peanut and pencil kiosk on the courthouse

Kathie   September 15th, 2010 10:20 pm ET

I do not understand the secrecy re: this court or the fact that these are lifetime appointments. All branches of government should have term limits! there is no good reason why cameras are not allowed in this courtroom especially since these elite judges decide our laws. the court has made serious errors–the most flagrant was appointing Bush the winner in Bush vs Gore where we had a "president" who was appointed NOT elected. If I recall this decision should have been made by congress.

K. Day   September 15th, 2010 10:21 pm ET

Absolutely cameras should be allowed in the supreme court. The House and Senate both have cameras. The actual decision making process is not done in the courtroom, only the argument, questions and breifs are presented. The public should be able to watch the process. The more open the government and court system are the better for the nation. There is nothing to hide so allow the cameras. The public can only learn from it and the more the public knows the better off we are.

Rob   September 15th, 2010 11:11 pm ET

SOMEONE .... Desperately needs to come up here to northern PA and see what the oil and gas extractors are doing to the people and the environment around the greater Williamsport , PA area. 40 plus good families are in jeopardy. Tea Party local political officials and their business associates(yes I will Name names) are behind a whole lot of corruption, collusion, and butt patting going on here with regard to oil and gas drilling in the farmlands surrounding this area. A large group of families that have been on their lands for generations, ((because of their neighbors voracious greed and bad decision making) are in fact being badgered to sign leases that will, and already have, negatively impacted their long time homesteads. The people Backing this are Tom Marino running for congress, and county supervisor Jeff Wheeland, and more tea party members. There is no real goood clean politics behind the TEA PARTY. They are a ridiculous joke played on us by the republican party.( I WAS A REPUBLICAN) Please Help these families, and help this community to keep a bunch of sleaZy Texas oil and gas extractors from coercing, and manipulating these families. The name of the questionable firm will be given upon your verbal request and without reservation. These sleaze bags are not worried in the slightest about small businesses or your taxes, they are only worried about their financial dealings and their buddies businesses, and business connections. HERE is your tea party in true action. Same sleazy morons. I'm sorry that this may not fit the current agenda on the show yet the folks aforementioned really need your help. P.S. though it should not mean a thing, nearly all of these affected families are Republican farmers.

if someone was going to pollute your only water supply to your home and your business,and ruin the outcome of your livestock, AND THEY COULD STOP IT EASILY, what would you do Mr King? I hope that your well( so to speak) at CNN has not been polluted. so that you may bring this to point. One families marginal success with oil and gas should not potentially ruin the lives of so many others, AND a beautiful environment.

Cajazz76:24:8   September 15th, 2010 11:49 pm ET


Bravo for your short expose up in WMPT land. I can complain of what is happening here in North Texas, but who cares since the right-wing has this state crippled with the lies and false testing on water supplies. The nation is not aware that Texas gets the vast majority of its water from man made lakes. The fracturing of shale is reportedly (sic)not contaminating those who have well water. The Barnet Shale explorations and drilling is not only contaminating the well water, but the air as well. One last unique bit of info. All the lakes in Texas except one, Caddo Lake, formed by imploding earth following an earthquake a long, long time ago are all man made...Thanks Rob for the info..and take care. Who won the Little League World Series this year? They came and went so fast, I missed the final game...caj

Eduardo Rubiera   September 16th, 2010 12:45 am ET

what norm does the Court use to determine that the death sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment?

Shonnie   September 16th, 2010 1:05 am ET

NO. Unless one would watch the entire case, we would once again be a puppet to the half truths of the media. CNN does the best job, in my opinion. Yet even CNN drops the ball, IE; Anderson Cooper said he wouldn't leave the Gulf spill, yet he did.

I wouldn't want my case televised. I'd want to be sure all was focused on the facts not on Justices having to watch their words or heaven forbid showboating.

Ryan Patrick Bartscher   September 16th, 2010 1:36 am ET

Thank your Larry for this interview! It was moving and was needed in this country. With a president that is a democrat, but obviously isn't supporting the far left or far right, it was great too see a political figure that was not a staple for a certain party. Hearing from the justice who is conservative as he said many times, but truthfully votes on the true protection of our constitution is what this nation needs too see. he was an amazing guest who connected with me and so many other americans that don't identify with the extreme left and right of this country. We may tune in to listen too the arguments for pure entertainment, but more americans need too tune in for interviews like this, where there is true character shown from a respected individual from one of thee most powerful areas of our government. Obama may seem leftist, but he should be compared too the tea party rightists with facts! Thank you CNN, I just want the facts on these tea party candidates to be brought out, and the average american person deserves too hear what change they really want too do in policy, We all as americans want change! We voted for it in 2008, and deserve the facts! We want jobs and an economic future that is stable....give us the facts and we will vote educated on this midterm election in November!

Smith in Oregon   September 16th, 2010 1:45 am ET

Here in America, 'We do not (mostly) find Telephone Justice in a regular fashion'. Justice Stephen Breyer

A refreshing and fairly accurate appraisal of 'Justice' from a distinct insider of the Justice System. Rarely does any judicial member even mention how crooked, graft filled and utterly corrupt Justice Systems are around the entire world, including in America.

What Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is referring to is a powerful figure calling the judge or prosecutor to either derail the charges (get that defendant OFF) or grease the rails (get that defendant charged and severely convicted with prejudice).

For decades callous fingers have pointed to nearby Mexico's Judaical System as an example of mass bribes, graft and corruption in Mexico's Judicial System. While Justice Stephen Breyer is publicly stating this doesn't 'routinely' take place in America, it does however TAKE PLACE IN AMERICA.

I have seen such injustice take place in America's court systems time and time again. A phone call is made and all charges are dropped. Another phone call and a lunch with the judge and the suspect is charged and thrown into prison. That isn't justice, that is political abuse and a crass reflection on blind justice.

Angela Savage Austin   September 16th, 2010 3:07 am ET

Very enlighting ! It would be nice if they visit schools around the country and encouraged the study of Civics! I need to do the same.

Lupe   September 16th, 2010 3:56 am ET

No because we already have our big camera above our heads. God is watching us every seconds day and night. Why do we need a camera inside our supreme courts? is there anything wrong happenning inside? who do we have to trust is you or our God? if we have to put cameras inside the supreme court, is gonna be like the street sights, for examples, if the power out,the street lights off,is a big mess, all the cars will runs to eachothers. People will commit crimes and have reasons to fight eachother before they face in court, especially people fight eachother before they remember God our father in Heaven. I don't want to allow the camera inside supreme court. Because I want to trust myself as I trust you. And we all trust in God is our saver. Keep everyone to be honesty and truthlyness and to love eachother as one family. Learned to love each other before we learned by our mistake otherwise it will be too late. Thank you. You so much appreciated for your hard work. God bless Stephen Breyer and God bless Larry King.

Dodie   September 16th, 2010 8:15 am ET

A ‘birds-eye’ view of the Supreme Court while in session would be the only democratic procedure in my opinion. Especially since their decisions reside over our entire nation. Why all the secrecy unless there is something they want to hide?

I agree with cajazz. If we can view Congress in session, why not the Supreme Court?

Sandra   September 16th, 2010 8:35 am ET

I found his smug slams at other countries and their supreme courts insulting.

I think the US needs to grow up and grow up fast. They are no longer the richest, best educated, best at anything country right now.

Charles   September 16th, 2010 10:32 am ET

Well, why not have cameras then in all of Obama's meetings. Do we think decisions made in those meetings are not important? Cameras in the court is not a good idea.

John Hughes   September 16th, 2010 11:07 am ET

Mr. King,
As a former New Yorker, born in Brooklyn, much like yourself, I have to tell you that last night's interview with Associate Justice Breyer was the best LK Live show I have seen in years!!! BRAVO!!!

Cajazz76:24:8   September 17th, 2010 2:04 pm ET


I'll bet you don't allow your left hand to meet your right hand. If the lawmakers can have cameras, then those who uphold those laws should have cameras. If Congress allows their conduct to be viewed, then why not the Judiciary? As for the president, you cannot use him as an example because he is neither lawmaker or judge. Apparently the good justice was correct. More Americans can name three of the Stooges than can name three Supreme Court justices or the three branches of government. Have you ever heard of executive privilege? Lawmakers and judges do not have that concession, in ordinary times, during the performance of their duties...caj

Cajazz76:24:8   September 17th, 2010 2:14 pm ET


You have a shortfall in that you are short-sighted. The U.S. is NUMBER ONE is many positive areas . Need I name them, the list is rather lengthy?..caj

Comments have been closed for this article

Keep up to date with Larry

Follow him on Twitter

Become a fan on Facebook

Contact us
Go Behind The Scenes


LARRY KING LIVE'S Emmy-winning Senior Executive Producer Wendy Walker knows what it takes to make a great story.

With anecdotes, provocative emails, scandals, show transcripts and insights into Walker's long working relationship with Larry King, her new book PRODUCER issues readers an invitation to listen in on the most intriguing conversations on the planet.

Order from:
Barnes & Noble

King of Hearts

Larry King's King of Hearts

Saving a heart a day is the goal! Learn more about the Foundation and it's efforts to help the uninsured

Visit the Larry King Cardiac Foundation.

subscribe RSS Icon
Powered by VIP