U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said Thursday it’s everyone’s job to be more collegial if the U.S. is going to address the divisiveness that has plagued the country.
“The first place to look about how to bring a better attitude in the United States, I’d say the first place to look is the mirror and say, ‘What do I think and how much am I prepared to give? And how much am I prepared to listen to other people and really mean it?’” Breyer said during an event at the University of Virginia School of Law on Thursday.
He said he hopes people will start deciding they want to see a more “cooperative attitude” in the U.S.
“That will be sensed. That will be showing up in results, and you’ll get it,” he said.
The collegiality of the Supreme Court is a topic frequently raised with the justices, particularly given the heightened partisanship that has engulfed the country, and Washington, D.C., in particular.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch both spoke of the need for civility during events over the past few weeks and have praised the collegial atmosphere of the Supreme Court. Breyer, speaking Thursday, echoed those comments.
“I still can say, I’ve been there for more than 20 years, 23 years probably. I’ve never heard in the conference a voice raised in anger. I’ve never heard in the conference one judge say something mean about another, not even slightingly, not even as a joke. You just don’t,” he said.
The justice advised those in attendance to listen to those they disagree with and try to find at least one point of agreement.
“You better maintain a collegial attitude if you want others to think about what you think, and you better really think about what they say, because if you’re pretending to, there’s nothing that’s sensed more quickly on the part of another person,” Breyer said.
The friendship between Ginsburg and the late Justice Antonin Scalia is often held up as an example of the bridging of the divide between opposing ideologies. But when Breyer was asked whether he believed there is a role for the Supreme Court to play in curbing the division in the country, he demurred.
“We can’t do it. You can’t do it,” he said. “What we can do is we can do our job. And the best thing that we can do, do our job, and don’t try to worry about whether this is going to be politically beneficial or not beneficial. You do the job. You decide the case, and you decide it without too much animosity, and you try not to do anything that would interfere with the role of people seeing the court as an institution of people who on many things think quite differently, and many think quite similarly. But they do try to get on.
“Now, people can draw what lessons they want from that,” he said. “If they draw lessons in the political environment, fine, excellent.”
