HLS in the World | A Conversation with Federal Judges About Federal Courts
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- During a bicentennial session titled “A Conversation with Federal Judges About Federal Court,” co-hosted by Harvard Law School Professor Richard H. Fallon Jr. and Harvard Law School Dean John Manning ‘85, with three judges currently serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, Hon. Cornelia Pillard ’87, and Hon. Robert Wilkins ’89. The judges explored the complex, urgent, and changing challenges that confront the federal judiciary, and discussed how federal judges think about their role, including in interpreting the Constitution, interpreting statutes, and checking Congress and the Executive Branch?
Their talk was part of the HLS in the World bicentennial summit which took place at Harvard Law School on Friday, October 27, 2017. Read more: 200.hls.harvard.edu/
The Q&A at 1:12:47 is some of the tightest advice ive ever heard. Watching this video has truly made for the best night of my life.
Phenomenal! Thank you for sharing!
Judge Cornelia is impressive.
Pillard is such a great jurist.
She's an activist tyrant.
The panel helps us to distinguish between "the public" and the reading public who will or may actually read opinions published in the Fed. Reporters.
Thank you
Lmao..the black judge and white woman judge SMASHING!!! 😅
Hello,
Courts have asked the people to drop appeals/etc in the box outside court so they can stamp the date
I in person have filed the appeal and they stamped it on Tues. and also I put a duplicate appeal in the box on Tues, same doc.. (I was nervous)
The issue: the clerk stamped the duplicate on Wed. which is the overdue date. Judge denied the appeal for the Wed appeal and ignore the appeal that I personally filed on Tues. I have my copy.
Courts are putting any date they want on docs from the box. What do u recommend to do? PLEASE!
why DC court of appeals has low docket cases, why not immigration (federal law), why not international trade disputes and will NOT rule on merits of case?
Thank you 🙏
Awesome // thank for sharing // Clear or Ambiguous // but on Court's we should be carefully about be clear with the Statuary status of any individual in any State but the issue it's more relative to empathize, by angle it to either more Philosophy think or theory interpretation. But such as any circumstantial, most of the people follows their own Philosophy.
Let pray together God please help
👍👍👍👍👍
I thought this was about Horses Love Stegosauruses
What is there stance on Title 18 U.S.C. Sec 4 Misprision Felony and that of Discriminatory treatment of Pro Se Plaintiffs/Defendants if all citizens are guaranteed Equal Protection Under the Law. Which no longer exist for poor people
Good panel discussion. The black Judge seems tired and burnt out though.
Hello.
It may sound like, when it comes to COVID the issue is a question of vaccination, one of education, in science, statistics and seriousness of outcome, or convictions, however, it seems like the issue is confusion around duty of care and causation.
It looks like the consensus is, that the extent to which being vaccinated eliminates transmission, is uncertain, therefore, a civic duty argument for being vaccinated to minimise transmission, to eliminate causation as a factor with certainty, seems moot, and as a precautionary burden, not the most pragmatic.
If on the other hand, the idea of vaccination is to provide, at a lower intensity, an immune response to give a memory for the body on how to deal with a virus if it should encounter it again, then, perhaps, it is that the government ought to have a duty of care to make vaccinations available and accessible, with and through educational information, however, it sounds like it is as if the body has no memory if there is a variation of the virus, and, there are new variations of the virus each season, then, on balancing competing beneficial outcomes, it may not be of social utility to expect that COVID vaccinations ought to be available for all(or rather, taken or made to be taken, by all)?
If it is valid, as it seems it is suggested, that just about everyone needs to be vaccinated, for the good of others, or, it is not unacceptable to use as a singular criteria, of some sort of success to do with covid, in insisting most if not all be vaccinated, how is it then not valid to have a lockdown, without regard to context, of just about everyone, for the good of others, or, it not unacceptable to use that same or a singular criteria for lockdowns, in general?
It seems like:
All are as if in a 'preventative detention' not for punshmiment, but for fear of being humans with immune systems vulnerable to re-offending indefinitely with infections and transmission of COVID, under a control order necessitating getting a 'jab' in the arm, vaccinated, prohibiting associations, visiting certain places, activities, ownerships, etc;
or,
All are as if slaves awaiting to receive a vaccine ticket ' jab', in the arm, to be contractually bound by terms and conditions on accepting that vaccine ticket to freedom, but not indefinitely, and not unlike personal'property on a lease that cannot be held indefinitely, needing to renew regularly;
and,
It does not seem unreasonable under those circumstances to foresee potential doors opening for opportunities of ease for coercion, undue influence, exploitation, blackmail, harassment in supply of consumer goods and services, sale of a vaccine as if a body part by a destitute person, etc.?
Is this reasoning completely invalid?
1:04:48 min ...that sounds like it sits well.
"THE US ELECTIONS"? BY PROFESSOR WALTER VEITH AND MARTIN SMITH YOU TUBE POWERFUL POWERFUL WATCH FROM SOUTH AFRICA ENJOY 🙏🏾❤️😄
I don't agree with the judge who said she finds Justice Scalia's opinion writing "snarky." As she said, he's clear. He was also reflecting his personality, which was honest and sharp. Nothing wrong with that. It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. What happened to loving "diversity?" And no, it does not mean that someone is taking the task of deciding less seriously (or being less dignified) just because one uses humor. Joy is life! That should be true in the law, too. Enough serious sourpusses...doing something "important." Sometimes it's just not that deep. And Justice Scalia reserved his largest snark for his dissents (as you can see from the fine book, Scalia's Dissents by Kevin Ring), when he knew he was NOT making law. He was in the minority. His decision would be just read for interest. He could be acerbic and droll if he wanted to because at the end of the day, it would not matter...the majority opinion would rule. That serves an important purpose. One should drive the reader to see your side, using strong means, such as "snark" or humor, especially when you are in the minority. What the heck else is protest? And a judge who dissents, that's essentially what she or he is doing. Let's not just have one way of doing things!
Oh, and this judge also didn't hire a clerk who was honest with her about her shortcomings, after being challenged to do so. The fact that she was honest should have been a reason to hire her...she is aware of her flaw, that she is "efficient" and sticks to a side when she makes up her mind (which is not necessarily a flaw, even in appellate work, by the way). Her other clerk interviewees may have felt the same, but didn't have the candor to say it, or the perspicacity or self-introspection to SEE it. I like the judge, but I do not like those two comments. Otherwise, good panel.
Everyone started writing like him. That's what made it a problem.
Snarky isn't a derogatory word
The governament state French DEJON women was talking with my daughter Franchise and American are contract for all people's working territory French orders state French paying pensions,for my self are 6 ambassador fact and allot Administrator diplomats French my name is famed....
And thats the problem..yall must MOVE SHIT ALONG to make ur lives easier.. 4 you??!!! Non of yall qualified to judge ANYONE!!!
Thank you
Thank you