Mock Class With Anne Coughlin
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2024
- Professor Anne Coughlin gave a lecture on the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas for a mock constitutional and criminal law class. This lecture was part of UVA Law's admitted students open house. (University of Virginia School of Law, March 16, 2018)
Shoutout to the ASL translator. Also, it's wonderful that this is free
Great stuff. I hope to be able transfer here after my first year
You know youre a great professor when random people listen to your lectures over coffee every morning lol.
Also being given a trial denovo means to be given a fresh restart with impartial mind sets new, or renew presiding right?
Also delegislating a law presumably costs tax player's government pooling in of personal acruemnent in legal wealth too.
So if the harmful noting, but troublesome havoc it has a clean up cost to the good people it not may hurt, and potential all of society.
Also.
Why is a noting of law so expensive in both writing, and removal?
Dolars being a monetary resource with limitations.
Scalia may acknowledge that there are a line of cases which establish substantive due process but thats not the same as believing there is substantive due process or that it should have ever come about. Second, the latter view of justice Kennedy here makes it so justices have the power to safe guard and enshrine right overriding the democratic process. I.e., voting on a matter of such importance like abortion was taken away from the people to decide and those who believed otherwise never had a voice. Im wondering if you are starting to smell the dogmatism of the living constitution view? Its not up to justices to be a kind of king/queen and decide what rights we all have, its up to the people or democracy thats what we have right? Sure Kennedy brings in all these random contemporary source, some from outside the country, how is that indicative of what the times demand? I'm sure scalia or anyone else could pull random contemporary source that contradict those views. Maybe the founder's left it vague NOT because they wanted justices of Supreme Court to decide what enshrined rights we have, but because they knew they need to leave room for the democratic process to actually work and people to vote and agree to develop new right/new amendments. Food for thought, justice authoritarianism is the path that has brought us where we are
now and that is premature enlightenment.
Judges need to look at the causal chains if the law once after over seen an over ruling creates a negative consequence.
Corect?
Do they care if they understand, worst case do they even understand, or agravatingly pretend mock ignorance?
Feminist Theory in the law?? As a UVA alum, I'm embarrassed.
Didn't apply here because the litigants had uhm...equipment... that Feminists lack.
Dripping with political correctness, pathetic ‼️
Well as much as I disagree with this case's outcome, I thought the lecture at least explained the path to the decision well.
Yes, one of the early cases that field the beginnings of the vicious alphabet mafia that lead us to where we are today..."men can get pregnant". Before these mock classes cases would have been about black victimology. Now blacks have been pushed aside for the Rainbow folks.
The case of when playing the skin-flute became legal. The beginnings of the vicious alphabet mafia.
Anne Coughlin this is not meant as an insult but.
Your teacher's did not give you all the basics as an exclusions of means so they can gate keep important understandings so your career would end as an invevitable failure didn't they?
Too wife material was the speech lines given.
Some line like this right?
Right?
Also fourteenth amendmant prevalent for memorisation.