Ames Moot Court Competition 2018
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 11. 2018
- Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Sonia Sotomayor was at Harvard Law School on Nov. 13 to preside over the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition.
Justice Sotomayor was joined on the bench by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod ’92 of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Susan Carney ’77 of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the fictitious case, Groves v. Gallant, a constitutional dispute over the right of a convicted criminal to “keep and bear arms” and the right to publish instructions for 3D-printing guns on the Internet.
The two teams of 3Ls-the Grace Murray Hopper Memorial Team for the petitioner and the Clarence Earl Gideon Memorial Team for the respondent-clashed over the constitutionality of two revised statutes, specifically whether one violates the Second Amendment as applied to the petitioner, and whether the other violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
To view the history of the Ames Moot Court Competition, including decades of videos and info on past competitions, go to : hls.harvard.edu/ames-moot-court/
okay so no one faints here :)
😂😂😂😂
Lmao 😭🤣🤣
OMFG THIS COMMENT LOLOLLOL
THIS COMMENT IS 💯
I was expecting 😂😂😂😂😂😂
just by watching., this scares the hell out of me...
Yeoooo same!!!
I'm glad they put these hearings on the internet.
This is a fictitious hearing and case. A competition for law students. The court still and should never televise their hearings.
@@RYAN-xm6bn
listening to SCOTUS oral arguments is a great pasttime.
@@RYAN-xm6bn i wish scotus did televise them. why say you different?
Santos Rodriguez
Because in today’s political culture, Constitutional issues should not be influenced by political beliefs through TV. Doing so we would open our world the the judicial branch which requires a lot of understanding and history on how laws work and why they’re placed, and argued upon. Plus it is said almost all justices do not support televising their hearings. They are rather boring since the judges just sit there and listen mainly and ask questions now and then. Constitutional issues should be decided by justices who follow judicial precedent. As their job is to only interpret law.
@@santosrodriguez8651 look at the state of congress. you have people grandstanding for the cameras 24/7. lets keep that out of SCOTUS
I like how simple the topic was tbh... made this case a lot easier to follow for us who aren’t in law school/ who aren’t practicing attorneys. Mostly understandable overall
Yea... The 2019 case was on native american child custody laws lol.
ㅤㅤ yeah that one killed me lol.
@Brad1156 its...a....joke...
@Brad1156 yes it was
@@obo2999 yep. Was a joke. Some people don't catch on lol 🤣
I understand the words but not the sentences.
You can't write the same comment on every Moot Court Competition. Not cool...
Lmaoooo get a fucking life. Going on to every moot court video and commenting the exact same comment just for likes.
@@Reply_if_you_gay lmao get a life. Why do u care about him commenting his ORIGINAL comment on videos? Does he bother u? Oh well, get over yourself,your highness.
Olive Jake lol get a life. Why do you care about me commenting about him making his comments on videos? Does it bother you? Oh well, get over yourself, your highness.
@@Reply_if_you_gay lmao feeling smart now roasting people who did nothing to u? And BTW I just attacked u back as what he is supposed to do. U have a million ways to say it nicely but oh well, i guess your princess-ness won't allow u to do that.
This is really top notch mooting. This has to be the culmination of natural talent and hard work.
May sound geeky, but I love watching court competitions.
Same.
In my country you'll be considered the perfect son!!! being geeky is cool in Asian culture!!! Everyone wanna be geeky here!!
I do too!
omg same
And I loved participating in moot courts at law school. It is scary, but thrilling and it is perhaps the best experience any law student can gain to prepare him/her for real life practice. The research and the requirement of knowledge about the topic/law is challenging, but that's how real life cases work :)
This is cool to watch but also really scary and stressful
The main thing I take away from these moot court competitions is being able to actually watch SCOTUS justices in argument.
Shows us how big of an imbecile Sotomayor truly is. She willfully ignores hundreds of years precedent and even the very language of the Constitution itself. Instead of asking for the legal reasoning behind the petitioner's points, she instead argued her own personal opinion as if she were a Congresswoman, not a judge.
Thank you Harvard Law School for putting this video together.
The issue at hand is something that we can follow, and actually here the arguments from both sides
i even can't understand anything about what they said because i'm a Vietnamese trying to learn English right now. But i really impressive and admire all of them. They really talent, think fast and talk smart !
Hope you're learning well! This is a great place to get some expert speaking tips. I'm vietnamese too (Viet American)
Hope your learning is going well! Keep up learning
think fast and talk smart r the logos of the native speakers👍
Your english is fantastic =) better than mine and I'm a native speaker. Best wishes to You
Thank you so much 🥰
There’s something about seeing Sotomayor as the Chief Justice that makes me feel good inside
Do you find it amazing that a woman born in a generation so technologically inferior to our's is able to explain, comprehend, and rule on a topic as complex as 3D printed firearms??! My father is around her age still doesn't know how to compose an iMessage lol. It is reassuring to see people as intelligent as her on the Supreme Court :)
Dave Mahler that’s why she’s on the Supreme Court. All judges need to be like Sotomayor in terms of understanding that our society is rapidly changing and making sure the Constitution will be adaptable to today.
John Henderson how would you rate Cathrine McCaffery’s argument on a scale of 1 to 10?
Sotomayor is this generation’s Byron White
Agreed! It’s also nice to hear the words “Madam Chief Justice” apply to her - even if it’s for a competition.
O good! It is a unique way to disseminate learnings to all worldwide.
Thanks. ..
Justice Sotomayor's pauses are so funny to me. Unintentional of course... she pauses in contemplation then they feel they have space to respond but nope lolol. Hats off to these brilliant students
I love watching court competitions ❤️
what will be the researcher test only for the researcher of the team at the competition day?
Yes......goodwill comes with gold
Here i would able to see that how to represent before the honourable court and the main thing moot court it can be improve my fluency in argument thanks a lot
How am I going to be a lawyer?? I'll probably faint when the judge will ask a question
Check out Ames 2019, haha.
ames 2019 15 mins lmao a girl DID. and literally SAME i have to get through to myself that i wont agree with everything im arguing and i will have to see how i can agree and argue it is right lmao
Just do scripted faint to get time for the question , like the girl did in Ames 2019.
@@ArcherALT did she really script it?!?!
@@garrettgould4406. She said it was a ploy.
That is great!
I don’t know why CZcams recommended this to me. Can’t believe I’m enjoying this!
Excellent by all means!!
damn they can talk..if i had a dollar for everytime I would say "umm" if I were there I'd be earning like 10-15 dollars per minute.
HAHAHAHA you killed it man!🤣🤣🤣
@@msanngie565 :))))
The brilliant eye of judges sees.
Ahhhh... reminds me of when I wanted to be a lawyer in high school 😍😍😍
For these moot court competitions, how are they organized? Is this prepared or on the spot ?
Definitely a months preparation.
Drinking game: Take a shot every time the chief justice says "Umm"
These are all Harvard teams (i.e., Harvard v. Harvard)? Thanks.
For case to proceed judgement of Corbin plaintiff
The oralists didn't research CAD files and how they work, and neither did the judges. A CAD file usually uses G-code or another, this is written by the programmer as their free speech, as it is simply a list of coordinates and direction codes that the machine understands and carries out. It is not simply something that just happens because a person made a drawing on a computer, or had the Idea to make a gun. This individual had to program through a computer to create the Nessassary instructions that the machine can understand. It is the same as using any type of printer to print, an individual writes what is desired to be printed, and transfers the knowledge into the printer through different methods for the printer to carry out and transfer their written text onto paper. The simple difference is that the written code is transferred into a physical object.
prosím rozoberte celi film ako sa začalo zatvárať obchody v Vojne a výklad dnes opačný kde sa dá predpokladať že by dnes to trochu zmenené ale podstata myšlienka zostáva stejna Dne pred tým s dnes je to opačne kde štáty izoluje od všetkého a stále niekto bude tvrdiť o biznise a kupovanie generálov
One of the highest key word that appears on this competition is "Constitutional right". Has anyone noticed that we are signing off a lot of constitutional right in a lot of circumstances? Such as when you sign contract with your employer, sign lease agreement with your landlord, sign CC&R agreement when you buy into an HOA, clicking "agree" when your cell phone prompt some app upgrades... May anyone suggest how strong those agreement can bind you?
Well,the Mooting is amazing
Technically, since there are 2 teams in this competition, the proper award should assigned as “Better...” not “Best...”.
I believe that "best" calls for the highest excellence in a group. Therefore, a group of two can have a best. A group of three can have a "good," and "better," and "best." However, a group of one cannot have a "best" since there is nothing/no one to compare.
@@awilson8521 Correct. "Best" is better than all the rest; since "all the rest" here is just one other team, then "best" is correct. "Better" is also technically correct, since "best" includes better; but I believe it's insufficiently clear, since "better" per se does not imply "best."
Counsel, stand up straight.
nice from zambia studying law at university of zambia
What is speech council? 🤔
Don't mind me, I rewatch it cause some article says you can 3d print a semi rifle which is 😬
6:00-6:15 wtf did I think this man was eatin a sandwich in court?
i just laughed so loud. it does look like it lollll
the second speaker counsel of the petitioner certainly could draw to the main point rather than beating AROUND THE BUSh , Judges do not like that.. by ipso facto of historical eveidences to the point of law per se could be precise .
Harvard law students are a whole different level... I can't even present a patient's history to my consultant without stammering lol
why Dasani though?
"Damn the Moot!" - Ulfrich Stormcloak
LOL! :D
The argument that applying restrictions through the State's police power to prevent crime somehow sets the Second Amendment apart from the First Amendment is bogus because that same State police power wielded to prevent crime is also applied to the First Amendment (See "fighting words" statutes, "criminal threat" statutes, etc. )
Is this with persian subtitle?
Today, I'm asking myself, "Do you still think that the Internet is entertaining?"
more like educational on my end
All the same, I wouldn't be watching this on a Sunday afternoon if I don't derive a certain satisfaction from it.
So even at Harvard Law they start off with the word so.
So?
How is that wrong?
Did he really imply that someone wants to be a felon?
Having been studying law my whole life (everything but law school itself), I enjoy these competitions a great deal.
Why dont you try law school
Instant Thoughtful responses 👌 👏
Interesting.
B Veerappa is a big CURROUPT JUDGE in Karnataka High court having connection with land developers and political leaders..,..in India
When did Aviation101 go into law?
The first kid destroyed these judges. Sotomayor described the item being made as dangerous rather than useful. That was a choice. ALS.
He did very well, for sure. I don't know about "destroyed," however.
Is it really okay to begin every other statement with the words ‘I think’ or ‘we think’. Isn’t the point of a legal proceeding to provide both the sides with an opportunity to make clear cut statements trying to prove their point of view is the right one, beginning with having a sound belief in oneself and what one is saying.
Saying "I think" or "we think" doesn't imply they don't have a sound belief in what they're saying....It's not about a lack of confidence, and it doesn't really matter what they preface their statements with, the judges still examine the statement itself. You think saying "I know....X" instead of "I think...X" has anything really to do with evaluating X?
Bdbs makes a point in saying that what is really evaluated is the substance of the proposition. Also saying I think is just basically saying “our position is “ except not rendered in absolute terms because in these type of contested cases, i think it’s just not adequate to frame your argument in that absolutist manner.
I thought about the same question. Doing so, I believe, encourages more questioning against the argument and somewhat weakens the foundation by creating rambling... which brings questions that are most likely outside of the studied spectrum.
Our professor told us, "Get used to saying "In my opinion" because that's what you're getting paid for." Here, they are expressing that in different terms and it doesn't take away from their argument in any way. If you watch other moots or even Supreme Court hearings, you will see the same thing. Part of it is because lawyers are interpreting the law and trying to justify it, so it's totally fair to say "we think". I think it allows for a more open discussion rather than a completely adversarial one in which everyone is arrogant and a metaphorical wall.
@@kevinnapier1014 Judges will ask regardless of how you phrase your question. They can't be complacent because (in common law jurisdictions - I can't speak to civil law) there is a lot on the line due to stare decisis, equity, etc.
I’m Not a lawyer or law student (yet), but, If l were arguing that the ban on the diagrams was constitutional- I would argue against the definition of the diagrams as blueprints or communication. Blueprints are instructions on how to make something- and, because they exist as nothing more than expression of instructions- they are considered speech, and are protected. However, that is not what the diagram is doing. The diagram- when given to the machine-makes the machine do the work of making the gun. It is not a text that the machine uses to build the gun- it directly implements knowledge into the machine and directly gives it the ability to do the work of making a gun- (a part from some minor actions and adjustments that the user would need to do to allow it to be made, however, these do not encompass the labor of making the gun- but rather a very small portion) Therefore, I would argue that the court can not consider the program to be written speech, but rather, a service- an active duty- in this case, of directly implementing knowledge. Since the diagram is not speech- an expression of thought, but rather a program- the implementation of thought, it is not speech. Consequently, the illegalization of the program does not violate first amendment doctrines.
CAD files use what is called g-code, as someone who codes a g-code is a written speech that is understood by the machine. The programmer wrote this speech it is not a direct implementation of knowledge. It is the same as someone who WRITES a code on a computer for a program, it is their free speech to have the computer carry out the code thus written.
@@sharmanitascos the point still stands though with code, that it isn’t just speech. Sure, someone wrote the code, difference is that code (in this context) is not just an expression, like bombmaking instructions. with bomb instructions the human reader still has to _choose_ to follow the instructions using their own mind. The 3D printer can’t. The reader has to independently understand, and complete the mental and physical labor of building a bomb- something again that they do out of their free will. The instructions aren’t an end in themself. In contrast, commanding computer programming-particularly this cad file, although a written piece, does more than express thought. It takes over the mental labor process of building a gun, by commanding the 3D printer to do its work. There is no ability for the printer to individually interpret the file, or decide whether to use it or not, because it has no free will and it has no mind. It has no ability to choose whether or not it wants to carry out the labor of making the gun, because it has no free will. It is _under the control_ of the programming. The programming acts as a surrogate mind for the 3D printer. Therefore, the CAD file is a service, not speech.
Very interesting
رائع
I’d shit myself trying to do this
Cool
Great job overall. I agree with the judges' decision, though it was close. It is hard to justify a 2nd amendment ban on a technology that parallels with a blueprint of a gun, though restrictions indeed do apply, a delayed releasement of rights is too nuanced to uphold. Great job to all.
I didn't understand a single word of your comment lmao
It seems that the fundamental problem arises from a public safety need to somehow control firearms. The control is possible because metal detectors can detect metal, and therefore a search can be done based on a probable cause that the metal could be used in a dangerous way. If the firearm is plastic, that bit of public safety may be reduced to zero. Therefore, the facilitated ability to make such plastic guns should be controlled. It does not seem that regulating such files is a violation of the 1st amendment.
What is the case?? But equality before the law more important
Fucking Incredible!! A Masterpiece of extraordinary witty exchanges ..
Sotomayor really does not think clearly. I don't get how she got to be where she is today.
I truly believe the respondents here deserve the best oralists not the petitioners.
4th orator really should've went with the content restriction/ strict scrutiny approach... the content-neutral approach doesn't make sense. He's making an almost strict scrutiny argument but failing to commit to it.
Hmmmm... I think Justice Sotomayor pushed a little too hard in one direction early on. I like this model for coaching associates (even in the domain of "technology"), but the evaluator/coach might have to put some distance between the role play and personal opinions. (Yeah, I actually agree with the position on regulating firearms that her words suggest... But still...)
خیلی خوب بودخوشم امد
@23:05-11 I must correct Justice Sotomayor on the background of Third Amendment to the Constitution- Quartering soliders in private homes. This was added to the Bill of Rights not because of what was happening in Britain, but rather what had happened in the colonies on many occasions before and during the Revolutionary War.
我认识大部分单词但是我真的不知道你们在说什么😢😭
Hi
That guy just interrupted Sonia Sotomayor twice, and it’s only the first five minutes!
Your theory of the case is that we
Her pattern of speech is so unusual I don't blame him
Is anyone watching this after tonight’s debate?
John 3:16
Forget IQ tests. This, right here, gives you a good idea of where you stand intellectually.
😂
This brings up an argument that felons who have served their time should have all their right reinstated at termination of imprisonment.
Law does not inhibit someone from committing a crime but allows punishment for breaking the law post-fact.
A law prohibiting a felon from possessing a firearm will not stop the felon who wants to commit a crime. The only thing the law is accomplishing is prohibiting felons who abide by the law (post confinement) the ability to possess a firearm. In essence repealing the law of barring felons firearms will not change any criminal statistic.
My suggestion would be to give violent offenders maximum sentences without possibility of parole. The court should also maintain graduated sentencing for repeat offenders respectively.
Commenters saying "So much legal jargon can be replaced by layman terms". Well, many words can be replaced by a single emoji. What's lost is the depth of meaning. The law has nuance and words have more particular meaning than you appear to realize, and that's why you're a layman and not a lawyer. So sit down and shut up, and try listening for once.
alberta ruberthe.
Sotomayor really seems uninterested in the long-standing precedent of Heller in her line of questioning.
That's a judicial activist for ya
In her subconscious mind, Heller has already been overruled
Please offer assistance [50 U.S. Code 1885 (1)], which may include covered civil action as service to any oath by employment U.S. Government employee or officer by organization of United States Department, see Pub. Law 89-554, enacted 6th September 1966. Cross ref. Political activities (22 U.S. Code 611 (O); member of Congress [18 U.S. Code 207(e)(9)(J)].
Here from jhalts bio LMAO
I'm so intimidated by these kids and they're all younger than me lol
Reminds me of suits.
Ikr
Military S.U.A and the police must to know the justice come after them and they familly 's for all the pain and sufferings ,they well pay,if they thinks they escape or they have rights to make this behind with the peoples they or are drunk's or they are sleeping. FOR ALL THIS THEY WELL PAY FINNALLY OF THE LAST POLICE(or they familly 's).
ITAR and 3D print Technology needlessly new legislation required..act or omission of act with guilt intentions would comission to a crime., but do civil acts with wicked minds can covert easily to criminal act..
International Traffic In Arms Regulation💪💪💪🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Ife thot enigma was worth deaiygn faor.....?😊😊😊😊.
Catherine is perfect 🤩
😊
Justice Susan Carney is beautiful.
htgwm vibes
Dude needs to stop interrupting the judges...
sevir clinic 35
Damn. -1:04:07/ 1:26:58 (2nd Ammendment)
That second girl, gave all the right answers, at the right time.
I'm not impressed with the questions from the judges regarding the first issue. They are demonstrating a lack of understanding and knowledge of the situation being argued. Also, for being professional they sure like to interrupt each other frequently.
It pains me to say it, but every time I hear Sotomayor speak I find her less impressive than the time before.
this guy is raising red herring to his argument
I would have argued that it should not be legal: for the fact that a gun or firearm is already tied into existing laws as a controlled object such as a registration requirements... controled sales, age requirements - if you think a twelve year old growing up in the ten next years will not have the know how to program tha little mac type user friendly box- your ill informed. And as for those 3D printers, they are already in the 2700$ price range ..."the nice boy who mows my lawn is printing guns for his friends as a hobby..." He's a nice boy no doubt- let's say, but who did he give the other guns to...
There's not really a choice tho? You're not allowed to choose whether you're going to defend or prosecute, and you're required to have case ready and memorials submitted from both sides of the argument. It just goes to reinforce that "A good lawyer can win a case from both sides"