The first amendment is so beautiful when used this way. I had no idea the Harvard law students were so impacted. How horrific. Im glad there was a sense of community when the admin was silent. It inspires my hope for the next generation of advocates. Thanks for sharing. Lowkey, I wish we got into more about the progressive tax bit. A single percentage universally applied with tax breaks for select circumstances (multiple children, disabilities, new family businesses etc) sounds more fair than just going off of a structure that dictates because you can pay more, you should pay more. We accepted that as a given and then moved on. Granted, I understand that voicing an underrepresented opinion was the take-away, but that piqued my interest. Once again, great series 👍
@ThomasdaleHopewelljr23 сағат бұрын
Supreme Court is theft by deception of a billion dollars worthwhile in the supreme court 1:36:53
@SOFTBOOKs-x5eКүн бұрын
Our United States must come back great again.
@2Truth4LibertyКүн бұрын
Ultimately, the constitution is to be interpreted according to the "meeting of the minds" of those parties who agreed to it (contract law). And, so it is, even though the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution in the first instance (judicial review), the States, with 3/4 support/agreement, can amend the constitution to make clear their understanding of it. Wherefore; When any such interpretation by judicial review is sufficiently in error to so motive the parties, the parties have avenue for having the final say of the meaning of the social contract.
@renildobarbosasilva1500Күн бұрын
The end
@renildobarbosasilva1500Күн бұрын
The Dir may friend, ⚖️🍀🚨🇺🇸.
@NancyJanitzКүн бұрын
I have been fighting for my right to maintain the medication for my PTSD since 2015, and until the last few years it was not a problem until the FDA and the Government started making it a Controlled Substances and I have not been abusing the medication and I have been been able to live a normal life for the last 24 years and it is a approved drug under the FDA
@NancyJanitzКүн бұрын
I have experienced many adverse effects from the other FDA approved medications that I was prescribed for my PTSD until I was prescribed the current medication in 2001!
@Dbulkss2 күн бұрын
Intellect cant fix trauma.
@klaudia21412 күн бұрын
I just know her brain worked 300% that whole competition.
@parvprasher54392 күн бұрын
If you get rejected you can always hack into the ny bar council and practice in a big firm
@SebasRewind1013 күн бұрын
the spirit of the tribe ancestors took ove rher lmao jk
@sumanpramanik18514 күн бұрын
14:42 Most viewed scene
@billbill68864 күн бұрын
I think the decision in this case was bs!
@ajg17915 күн бұрын
50:17-50:23 - mic drop! Judge Easterbrook stole the show. 1:01:50 - 1:02:10 - oof. The face he makes after saying "hmmm":)
@lupitahaussmann5 күн бұрын
Already admitting for 2027?
@mashudkhoundoker21535 күн бұрын
Parabola imagrashan intranasal Europe 🇪🇺 Union itali rom Bangladesh 🇧🇩 Dhaka feni 🇪🇺 gaid my fail and later dire.yur logistics opeseal on yur delicate ✨ help me
@LilTaco7775 күн бұрын
Louis Murray 😮
@limmengkoon6196 күн бұрын
Michelle Yeoh is so impressively articulate and eloquent, without looking at any notes, in communicating her thoughts. Frankly, she is more articulate and eloquent than many lawyers.
@Lalalalala9887216 сағат бұрын
her voice just sounds luxurious 😂 every aspect of her exudes her eloquence. I love her so-so much
@ANGELAVITULLI6 күн бұрын
Her arguments are too broad and too many.
@47imagine6 күн бұрын
Hmm did she fake it?
@sebby53366 күн бұрын
hey yall forgot me..
@Moonxsta6 күн бұрын
How did Elle Woods managed this
@jorgedilciatoushemedna8566 күн бұрын
I want to study at Harvard Law school is My dream❤❤
@kristinchong6296 күн бұрын
Miss Malaysia corp orate gu lag 23 23 Dank Cracked Out. But deploy 23 23 Immigration India forever . Your grandmaz make that list or or or u busy. Dank.
@sundarsubedi15466 күн бұрын
Wow ❤❤❤
@hkdluis7 күн бұрын
They should have picked Justice Amy Coney Barrett! She asks hard-hitting questions!
@nunyabusiness84985 күн бұрын
Barrett would NEVER have the stomach to go anywhere near Harvard. She came to California a few months ago, only to speak at a conservative Christian school that previously hosted Justice Thomas, she likes being in an echo chamber. She’s a brilliant woman and judge but this would be out of her comfort zone.
@AlanNguyen-bj8gk7 күн бұрын
"Jury can't be trusted to do the fact opinion distiction, for both constitional and procedural reasons." Then why in the hell do we have jury trial in the first place? In fact, it isn't for him to determine that either.
@babbisp17 күн бұрын
14:50 *faints* 16:27 16:50
@user-et9ww8do4f7 күн бұрын
😊🇺🇸❤️
@culturehorse7 күн бұрын
Judicial cosplay at its finest for dei fast tracking America's bane of judicial activism look no further than Haavad, the vatican of the ruling class.. gba!
Thank you for the 'DEI' yawnfest. I will point out that I did not see any asians represented in this presentation. Tsk, tsk...........
@interminable-fields5 күн бұрын
these students will graduate at the top of their harvard law school class, i don't know that entertaining you is really in their set of top priorities! also south asians are in fact asian, i would implore you to even glance at a labeled map before you accuse anyone else of being a 'DEI' recruit
@dragonflarefrog14242 күн бұрын
@@Glockenstein0869 Because none of the Asians who participated were good enough as these applicants. Screaming DEI rather then realizing that your preferred race was not good enough and rightly lose screams sore loser.
@AbdulkingprinceurielangelsaliE8 күн бұрын
These supposedly actions and capabilities and supposedly statutes or status yall premixed or remedied or permitted others being that your degree cress or degrees give yall the same principles or privileges to claim false authority and real estate or real monies and properties to strip others of they stability yall had together is falsilltios non propertiesious ancient or modern its ulienable regardless to have nationality birthrights non chatillos of people personally organizations that proper Tourios opinions and facts for the records pasts presents and futures is considered completely different from what was presented publicly privately internationally or false lies claim all these things are self sufficiently for my sakes which non macuiosrtuewfu in all caps regardless of the john and dough
@Dbulkss8 күн бұрын
Jackson is a terrible supreme court justice.
@adamabdulrahman29308 күн бұрын
You are a terrible person.
@u2bevet8 күн бұрын
Hater🤣
@Scoutbq1l8 күн бұрын
on what grounds
@Dbulkss8 күн бұрын
@@Scoutbq1l she can't define what a woman is.
@Dbulkss8 күн бұрын
@@Scoutbq1l she can't define what a woman is.
@d-bosssavagestak37088 күн бұрын
They tryed setup situations in florida an other places me know laws harassment laws as how r7ch I am an stupidity over showing off have a kid as few others imitate threats an situations caused falsey as assumed I'd provoke them me knkw laws an video of all attempts by all partys surprised who is who I'm following this anythingvfuryher from this text I will not allow hinderences in my way to all my kids or all of us me own as rest trying to implement an lead falsey I'm not man yo allow it. Kid is been as rest involved immature running what's mines usibg these individuals to get in way to try contain as falsey make situations appears as jobs trained me caught them doing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law allows individuals to use deadly force if they believe they are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, without the obligation to retreat, even if it is possible to do so. This law has been a subject of considerable debate and legal scrutiny, especially regarding its application in cases involving the use of lethal force. **Example of Application:** 1. **Incident:** Imagine a situation where two individuals are involved in a confrontation that escalates. If one person perceives that the other is a severe threat-perhaps due to previous confrontations, visible weapons, or aggressive behavior-they might decide to use deadly force to defend themselves. 2. **Legal Implications:** Under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, if the person uses deadly force in response to the perceived threat, they may not be arrested immediately. The law allows them to "stand their ground" and insist that their actions were a reasonable response to a legitimate fear of harm. 3. **No Duty to Retreat:** In this scenario, if the individual involved believes there is no safe way to escape the confrontation, they are not required to retreat before using force. This aspect of the law emphasizes the right to defend oneself in the face of a threat. 4. **Aftermath:** Following the incident, law enforcement may conduct an investigation, but if the individual provides evidence or testimony that supports their belief of imminent danger, they may not face charges. They can assert their right under the "Stand Your Ground" law. 5. **Legal Tests:** Courts may later assess the situation to determine whether the individual acted reasonably based on the circumstances they faced at that moment. It's essential to understand that the application of "Stand Your Ground" can vary widely by case, and interpretations in court may depend on the specific facts surrounding each incident. Given the complex nature of self-defense laws, individuals involved in such situations are typically advised to seek legal counsel. Kid is the aggressor not ever me for all references die to those involved tryed laws backwards thinking was stuoid part of case build ups as well as stardom riches kids of mines as mysekg furniture payed attention to Johnnny seven bowden tryed set daughter up an lost me only 13½ only family attempt on there behalf still failed sn a Karen Knox tryed with beneficiary of fsmily to try r7b me since baby check it me smarter no thoughts of liking any tyoe or any hinderence ever like all others familys not ever gonna win me the protector as rest the jealous of eye lie detector all involved watch me take all as doing either way all carerrs as well im allowed etc AI ME DO YOUR ASSEMENTS
@official_surge8 күн бұрын
!!!
@OuiSilvousplait8 күн бұрын
27:45 brilliant
@Dilnak-zp7uq9 күн бұрын
14:51 she fainted-
@MrDuane-lr8dm9 күн бұрын
I am skeptical that an AG would have argued that "any crime" would be sufficient to strip someone of their right to own a gun. Unless they were about to retire anyway.
@AltonGermain8 күн бұрын
I agree with you there, I was kinda surprised they went in that direction.
@MrDuane-lr8dm8 күн бұрын
@@AltonGermain My very first thought was "I wonder what the NRA would say about this". On the one hand 'guns', on the other hand 'immigrant'. Then I pictured their metaphorical brains dangling from a wrecking ball, swinging back and forth between a rock and a hard place, like Homer Simpson in his movie.
@ftftyffghfvghfcht67019 күн бұрын
if the man turned up in a low cut periwinkle blue silk tshirt i dont think he'd be taken as seriously
@NILUKUMARI-ub8sk9 күн бұрын
thank you ❤❤❤❤
@MahalingeVaishnavi9 күн бұрын
thank you ❤❤❤❤❤
@XiHamORTHOCN9 күн бұрын
Just when you think you couldn't get any dumber than Sotomayor! Okay, maybe you can't.
@interminable-fields5 күн бұрын
and thank god we have accomplished geniuses like yourself to evaluate the country's top judges! sonia sotomayor single-handedly pulled herself out of poverty and graduated (with distinction) from princeton and yale before beginning an incredibly influential career in law, but if it were up to me i'd put you on that bench myself
@XiHamORTHOCN5 күн бұрын
@interminable-fields She's dumb as rocks, but your credentialism has earned you one extra portion of food. Congratulations.
@NithinJune9 күн бұрын
1:15:43 Panel comments (if you watched the original upload this is the new stuff)
@kennethkho71658 күн бұрын
1:22:00 the reasoning is incorrect here, both sides had to review history, and it is well known that history is on the side of the respondent
@JhonnyAArevaloNavarroJune949 күн бұрын
Hark, what discord doth arise when words of multiple meanings do beset our noble Constitution? Alas, 'tis not explicitly addressed, yet well-established principles of statutory and constitutional interpretation do guide our esteemed judiciary in resolving such ambiguities. In matters of statutory interpretation, courts do apply the plain meaning rule, legislative intent, and statutory context to unravel the tangled threads of meaning. And when the Constitution itself is subject to interpretation, courts do consider the original intent of its noble framers, the text itself, and the weight of precedent. Yet, when words or phrases do prove ambiguous or vague, courts must navigate the treacherous waters of constitutional interpretation, lest the provision be deemed unconstitutionally vague, a violation of the Due Process Clause. Examples abound, as in the Commerce Clause, where the term 'commerce' hath been subject to various interpretations, and the Equal Protection Clause, where the term 'equal protection' hath been interpreted to prohibit discrimination in all its insidious forms. Thus, though the Constitution doth not explicitly address the issue of words with multiple meanings, the principles of statutory and constitutional interpretation do provide a framework for resolving such ambiguities, a testament to the wisdom and foresight of our noble Constitution's framers.
@jeffreyrichardson9 күн бұрын
kathy loved milton ballons trader joes stilton wet rain yu sang min
@jeffreyrichardson9 күн бұрын
jim lamothes sister dougs first widow twice kissed her chens loved wet worcester
@jeffreyrichardson9 күн бұрын
jeans husbands dollar colms suggested flea collar verns dry homes holler