Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer remains unsure approximately his destiny on the United States’ highest court, the longtime jurist stated in an interview published Friday.
Breyer, who at eighty three years old is the oldest member sitting at the court docket, has been cagey approximately any capability retirement plans within the face of a political pressure campaign to get him to step down even as Democrats control the White House and the Senate.
In an interview with the New York Times timed to the discharge of his approaching ebook, Breyer indicated he is nevertheless weighing his decision.
“There are quite a few blurred matters there, and there are many issues,” he instructed the Times’ Adam Liptak. “They form an entire. I’ll make a choice.”
Still, Breyer, who changed into nominated to the high court by using President Bill Clinton in 1994, gave some indicators that he is mindful of the dynamics looming over his ability retirement. He stated the overdue Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he served at the court docket with, as pronouncing he didn’t need his legacy at the courtroom washed away by using an ideologically opposed successor.
“He stated, ‘I don’t need any person appointed who will just reverse the whole thing I’ve achieved for the ultimate 25 years,’” Breyer stated in the interview, which was carried out Thursday.
Breyer additionally signaled that he did now not want to observe in the path of Scalia or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, each of whom died at the same time as serving at the Supreme Court in latest years. Those vacancies straight away have become sour political battles that were ultimately gained via Republicans and shifted the ideological stability of the courtroom to the right.
“I don’t assume I’m going to stay there till I die — desire now not,” Breyer said.
Breyer additionally expressed reservations about proposals to dramatically alter the Supreme Court, inclusive of expanding the quantity of justices as some progressives have recommended. The justice said proponents need to “think twice, as a minimum,” before such an project.
“If A can do it, B can do it. And what are you going to have when you have A and B doing it?” he said.
Breyer said his problem is that such machinations hazard undermining the courtroom’s legitimacy inside the eyes of the general public.
“Nobody honestly is aware of, but there’s a chance, and the way large a danger do you want to take?” he said.
‘It Nearly Killed Me’: Michael Caputo’s Life After Years Fighting for Trump
U.S. Officials provided Taliban with names of Americans, Afghan allies to evacuate
How Kamala Harris is embracing — and changing — the machine