| It is perhaps the most significant political story of the day, yet it is taking place in the ideally apolitical branch of government. And on Thursday, we finally got some tea leaves on what might lie ahead. A few weeks ago, we detailed in this space how, if Justice Stephen G. Breyer were to retire this year, it would probably have happened by now. Justices who retire almost always either do it or at least announce it by the end of a Supreme Court term, and the most recent term ended two weeks ago. The question of Breyer's retirement is a huge one, given that he's the court's oldest member, at 82, and the timings of recent vacancies have played into Republicans' hands. Democrats very logically would prefer not to have a repetition of what occurred with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who held on to her seat and died when Republicans could replace her, giving the court a historic 6-to-3 conservative majority. In a new interview, Breyer gave those anxious for his exit something to perhaps grab hold of, though hardly what they have wanted. He told longtime Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic of CNN that he still hasn't decided whether he'll retire. But the fact that he gave the interview and cited something very specific as part of his calculus seems pertinent moving forward. When asked about the factors in his retirement decision, Breyer responded, "Primarily, of course, health," and then added: "Second, the court."  Supreme Court Associate Justices Stephen G. Breyer, left, and Clarence Thomas chat. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post) | What that second part means is really the crux here. Breyer did not detail what he meant by it, but it would seem to suggest that he has at least some regard for how the court might be comprised constituted or at least function in the near and extended future. The easy answer for Breyer would be, "I'll retire when I feel good and ready to do so or can't serve." Instead, he suggested that the court itself is a consideration. One way to read that — which liberals would prefer — is that Breyer potentially indeed desires a like-minded replacement. A less politically overt summary of that would be that he wants to avoid the court's being even more unbalanced than it is now, relative to the political leanings of the U.S. electorate. Another, though, is that he's simply referring to his ability to serve ably and carry his weight as one of nine justices. Biskupic, for what it's worth — and it is worth a lot — seems to regard Breyer's answers as indicating that he will not retire until at least next term. "Breyer's duration [as the left wing of the court's senior justice] is unlikely to reach a decade," she concluded, "but he plainly decided it would not be a single term." Breyer's quotes do not necessarily say that so plainly. But he does speak about liking his new senior status on the court, and Biskupic certainly has more insight into where he might be leaning than someone who merely reads her recap. And there are reasons to believe Breyer might indeed hold out in ways liberals would prefer he wouldn't. As Biskupic notes, Breyer in April delivered a speech at Harvard Law School in which he decried the politicization of the court by the media, senators and others. He will elaborate upon that speech in a book due in September. "They reinforce the thought, likely already present in the reader's mind, that Supreme Court justices are primarily political officials or 'junior league' politicians themselves rather than jurists," Breyer said. "The justices tend to believe that differences among judges mostly reflect not politics but jurisprudential differences. That is not what the public thinks." The story I'm writing right now would seemingly be a case in point when it comes to Breyer's worrying about how such things are covered and understood. But it's valid to point out that justices, whether because of political ideology or "jurisprudential differences," generally decide in ways the party that nominated and confirmed them prefers. The court has six justices whose jurisprudence Republicans prefer, vs. three on the other side. They could have seven of the nine if Breyer's exit is going to have to wait, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made no secret that politics will influence whether he'd ever confirm a nominee sent up by the Democratic president to replace Breyer. Breyer's idealistic view of what the court is or at least should be is seemingly a factor in this. How would it look if a justice saying those things just happens to retire in the year or even in a congressional term in which Democrats regain control of both the presidency and the Senate for the first time since the 2014 election? That would seem to argue for sticking it out at least for a while, but Democrats' slim Senate majority carries no assurances of lasting even into next year, let alone 2023. At the same time, justices have a clear interest in at least professing to believe in and arguing for an apolitical court. Yet the reality of their retirements often points in a different direction; the last six retirees bowed out when the party with which they were most aligned in their rulings controlled the Senate and the presidency. That's every retirement announcement in the past 30 years, including those of four justices who were replaced by Democratic presidents and Democratic-controlled Senates. And that is very difficult to dismiss as coincidence. The question increasingly for Breyer is, if you know the process for replacing you is going to be so political, do you let those who have politicized the process and gained an advantage because of that win, potentially further politicizing the court? Or do you perhaps retire in the name of ensuring at least some kind of balance in whose preferred style of jurisprudence — if not ideology — gets more of a voice on the nation's highest court? That's about the best argument one could make for another seemingly conveniently timed retirement. And with the usual deadline for retirement announcements passed for this year, all eyes turn to when Breyer will again be in the news in September. (If you're wondering why I'm here and this newsletter looks a little different: I'm writing The 5-Minute Fix for the next week, followed by Philip Bump, until Amber Phillips returns from parental leave in August.) | 
Email 
