Legally Speaking: Stephen Breyer
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 02. 2012
- What are the nine unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court really good for? In a wide ranging interview with UC Hastings law professor David Faigman, Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer talks about the role that the High Court plays in determining the fate of the nation. Series: "Legally Speaking" [3/2012] [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 23486]
To earn CLE credit for watching this video, visit California Lawyer online: www.callawyer.com/CLLegallySpe...
If nothing else, this conversation really shows that having humility in one's opinions and the ability to wholeheartedly entertain opposing point of views is indeed a sign of a sophisticated mind.
I follow the pragmatic approach or what could even be labeled as “current textualism” where we define words during our time, not the 18th century and Staris decisis with consequence and purpose too
Wow! Outstanding explanation ' Be careful, don't go too far '...reasoning in the nature of the job.
I enjoyed how Breyer articulated differing views
What a man!
I like knowing his arguments. Not because I agree with them, but because I do not.
My Article on Legal Research and its impact mailed to Laws Institution
Including Justice Roberts chief justice of USA
The founding fathers drafted the constitution, in particular, the bill of rights, within the context of a long historical acknowledgment of tyrants and despots. Thus, the bill of rights was introduced to protect individuals from the given historical context of political and military power based on the distrust of human nature with presumed authoritative powers.
...and yet the ABA has effectively overturned the Bill of Rights without the bother of a Constitutional Convention and the rest of that nonsense.
A whole lot of people, myself included, quit voting after the Court's judgment in Bush v. Gore.
Recall, " the divine right of kings. "
The kind of comments on this video are appalling. Shameful.
Mmm. I get his point about the public respecting the court's decision, but there is a limit. I don't think the public should have accepted Dred Scott.
STEPHEN 'S RIGHT U HAVE TO BE RIGHT I SERVED ONCE ON THE JURY ONONE OFR THE FIRST CASES iN DNA THAT
PROVED THE FATHER HAD TO BE THE FATHER QND MOTHER INTHE ''''BABY LUCKY CASE'''''''' WHERE THE PARENTS
THRU A NEW BORN ON THE SIDE OF THE RD I WINDER HOW THQT BABY IS DOIN TODAY?
The comments reflect a lack of education about the country.
this thugs destroyed the country.