Biden a little emotional going over Breyer's long career, mentions that he is famous for biking across Washington
Biden mentions that he served as chair of the Judiciary Committee when Breyer was being confirmed for SCOTUS in 1994
Breyer is wearing a KN-95 mask, by the way.
Breyer is a "beacon of wisdom on our constitution" and believes "the law exists to help the people".
On Breyer's successor: "our process is going to be rigorous". Will pick someone with "extraordinary qualifications and integrity", and a black woman. "Long overdue."
Biden says he'll solicit advice from the Senate on potential nominees, as the Constitution says, not just its consent.
Biden says he'll pick someone by the end of February.
Breyer now speaks: "thank you, Mr President", that's "terribly nice".
Breyer says he loves talking to students. What gives you a thrill, they ask? Americans have chosen to address "their major differences" through the law.
He pulls out his pocket constitution.
"It's an experiment." Mentions that his wife offered their grandkids money to memorize the Gettysburg Address.
(He is speaking off the cuff - no surprise there.)
Breyer invoking Washington and Lincoln. America "is an experiment that's still going on". And it's up to the next generation to "determine whether the experiment still works. I'm an optimist, and I'm pretty sure it will."
He ends.
Now Biden offers up the Lincoln Bedroom for Breyer to come and stay.
Ends the brief affair, takes no questions.
That's it.
For all his flaws, Justice Breyer is a kind, menschy, brilliant man with high ideals, a true commitment to the rule of law, and irrepressible optimism, and boy, I'm going to miss him on the Court.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is NOT a dispute over whether someone is to be executed. It's whether SCOTUS should reverse two lower courts that agreed to pause a lethal injection for an illiterate prisoner who prefers to die via nitrogen hypoxia but couldn't read the form giving him that option.
And five justices intervened to make sure the cognitively impaired prisoner is put to death immediately rather than in a few weeks.
That's where we are.
Reeves's lawyer: “The immense power of the State should be used to help its citizens, not to prevent them from exercising their rights. The immense authority of the Supreme Court should be used to protect its citizens, not to strip them of their rights without explanation."
Admit I'm a little teary-eyed after reading the justices' lovely odes to Justice Breyer.
Some highlights:
Roberts: "his fanciful hypotheticals during oral
argument have befuddled counsel and colleagues alike"
Roberts: "He is also a reliable antidote to dead airtime at our lunches, moving seamlessly from modern
architecture to French cinema, to old radio shows, to a surprisingly comprehensive collection of
riddles and knock-knock jokes."
BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear challenges to race-based affirmative action
The cases involve admissions policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University, so the matter of affirmative action will be addressed for both public and private institutions— under the 14th amendment and the civil rights act
The cases will most likely be heard early in the autumn.
BREAKING: Supreme Court DENIES abortion providers' petition to reignite litigation against Texas abortion ban by ordering 5th circuit to return it to the district court. Apparent vote is 6-3.
Justice Breyer writes a short dissent, which Justices Kagan and Sotomayor join. Justice Sotomayor writes a 7-page dissent, which Kagan and Breyer join.
From Sotomayor's dissent: "The Court may look the other way" regarding the 5th Circuit's "delay tactics" but "I cannot".
BREAKING: Supreme Court DENIES Donald Trump's plea to keep his papers out of the hands of House committee investigating Jan. 6th insurrection at the Capitol
The apparent vote is 8-1. Only Justice Thomas would have granted Trump's plea.
Justice Kavanaugh writes a separate statement. Justice Thomas does not explain his dissent.
At 10am the Boston flagpole hearing at SCOTUS begins and I will be tweeting & analyzing it here. The case involves free speech but has strong religious-liberty undertones. 👇
Justice Kagan asks: does the city really have to put a swastika flag if the flagpole is a designated public forum?
A: yes
Kagan: so cities just can't have such a policy, right?
A: no
Barrett suggests another way to get around this is for Boston to say, this flagpole is our speech and we're only putting up what we want to say. Being more explicit that this is government speech.