This is a continuation of our prior post about an event we recently attended at Georgetown Law School, “On Liberty: A conversation between Justice Stephen Breyer and Professor Charles Fried.” For more background about the event, click here.

For the conclusion to our write-up, keep on reading. We bring you a “true confession” from Justice Breyer, as well as Professor Fried’s interesting views on gay marriage.

(Before returning to Harvard Law School, Professor Fried was a justice on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state’s highest court. But he was back in academia when they decided the gay marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.)

Our coverage continues, after the jump.

As we mentioned earlier, on Friday we headed downtown to Georgetown Law School for “On Liberty: A conversation between Justice Stephen Breyer and Professor Charles Fried,” of Harvard Law School. We were invited to this event by Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal (whom we thank for his hospitality).

Yesterday we shared with you our photos from the event. Now, the first half of our write-up — after the jump.

As we mentioned last week, on Friday we were delighted to attend “On Liberty: A conversation between Justice Stephen Breyer and Professor Charles Fried,” of Harvard Law School.

We were invited to this event by Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal, a legal academic celebrity (and former Breyer clerk). Professor Katyal did an excellent job as moderator of the discussion.

A more detailed report will follow in short order. For now, check out our pretty blurry pictures — after the jump.

We just got back from the very interesting discussion between Justice Stephen Breyer and Harvard Law School Professor Charles Fried, held at Georgetown Law School, and moderated by Professor Neal Katyal. We’ll post a full report — and photos — in the near future.

For now, though — we’re running out the door again — here’s our favorite part of the discussion.

Professor Katyal poses a hypothetical concerning whether, consistent with the First Amendment, a law could be passed forcing networks to replace entertainment shows like “Lost” with more civic-minded, educational fare, like vice-presidential debates. The example raises a tension between First Amendment freedom and Justice Breyer’s conception of the First Amendment’s purpose: promoting civic awareness and participation.

Professor Fried — who is a very dignified, elegant, and professorial older gentleman — starts to respond.

Professor Fried: “I watched Grey’s Anatomy for the first time last night, while flossing my teeth, in the other room. My wife doesn’t allow me to floss in the same room as her.”

[Laughter at this totally random domestic confession. The audience takes a moment to imagine Professor Fried in paisley pajamas, flossing his teeth, while his wife awaits his return in the bedroom.]

Professor Fried: “And I can assure you, the show is far more entertaining than any vice-presidential debate!”

Justice Breyer: “Gray’s Anatomy? I thought that was a medical text.”

Professor Fried: “You watch it, you’ll see that it ain’t!”

Unfortunately, the discussion quickly turns to campaign finance reform. We never learn whether Professor Fried favored “Dr. McDreamy” or “Dr. McVet” for Meredith Grey.

It’s only a matter of time before Justice Stephen Breyer takes out — or maybe grants himself? — a temporary restraining order against us. We are just following the poor man around.

We were present when Jeffrey Toobin interviewed Justice Breyer, at the New Yorker Festival. We caught SGB again on Tuesday night, when he debated Justice Scalia. And now we’re off to see him again, for the third time in as many months.

We’re heading across town to Georgetown Law, to attend A Conversation with Justice Breyer and Harvard Law Professor Fried. And we have high hopes for this star-studded extravaganza.

Justice Breyer’s intellectual sparring partner is Professor Charles Fried, one of the country’s leading conservative legal minds. In case you’re not familiar with his breathtaking resume, the highlights include service as the U.S. Solicitor General, from 1985 to 1989, and on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, from 1995 to 1999. Now he’s just slumming it, as the Beneficial Professor of Law of Harvard Law School.

(Great title! Better than being the Superfluous Professor of Law — which, sadly enough, is a title for which there is much competition.)

Oh, and the moderator is a star too: the phenomenally brilliant Professor Neal Katyal, a former law clerk to Justice Breyer, who successfully argued the historic case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld before the Supreme Court. Professor Katyal is one of the few young legal minds who can be mentioned in the same breath as Professor Noah Feldman — which is high praise.

In light of his celebrity — he even appeared on The Colbert Report, and was hilarious — we crowned Professor Katyal the Paris Hilton of Legal Academia. As we explained to the Paris Hilton of the Federal Judiciary, any comparison to Paris is meant only as a compliment. (Even Camille Paglia still likes her, despite the recent overexposure.)

We shall return. And we’ll bring you a full report of the exciting proceedings. Ciao!

A Conversation with Justice Breyer and Harvard Law Professor Fried [Georgetown Law]