Hobby Lobby vs Obamacare Sebelius
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- This is the entire oral arguments for the supreme court case Sebelius V. Hobby Lobby. If you want me to do more... www.kickstarte...
Enjoy watching. Special thanks to John Oliver.
#RealAnimalsFakePaws
ibmeruu, you have done more for the American public's education in the workings of its government than even the legendary "I'm Just a Bill" video. I bow to you.
Thank you.
Thank you for a real public service.
Your welcome.
2nd that +ibemarru. too bad too late 10 years for me
I think this would've been better if Oliver and his crew kept the sounds the animals made while filming. Having the random quack and bark during this serious debate would have been hilarious.
Ambient sound track is a great idea.
Finally, uncut proceedings!
Great pick, BTW.
You totally win the Internet, thank you!
You welcome. :)
You synced it perfectly, I just salute you for your perseverance! And I'd much rather see this than the actual justices any day
Awesome job.
But one suggestion. Just tack onto the end what the final ruling in the case was. If there's audio of the ruling you could do that, but even just a text caption in the end. It could be as simple as "Final Ruling: 5 justices ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby; 4 justices dissented." or it could be a more detailed breakdown of who ruled how.
I will do this on the next one. Hopefully kickstarter will help me make lots of these.
www.kickstarter.com/projects/1805649470/realanimalsfakepaws-supreme-court-oral-arguments
Absolutely brilliant. I can't believe you did the full oral arguments. Very well done.
Thank you.
John Oliver, thank you for allowing me the ability to listen to the Supreme court and not vomit. Thank you Sir!
But it's more interesting to watch with dogs
Starts clapping!! This is magic.
Thank you for sharing my video. Glad you enjoyed it.
The Point of the video was not simply to be funny. Its an alternative to listening to a simple audio recording of the Supreme Court (Which does not allow filming.) According to google analytics 70% of the Audience dropped out after watching approximately 5 mins. Of the remaining 18,429 people another 50% dropped out by 45 minutes. Leaving 9214 People who watched between 45 and 120 minutes. 1535 People actually watched the entire oral arguments. Lets hope these are the people we elect to public office.
Do you mean the former Dean of Harvard Law School, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Elena Kagan... Stupid is not a word I would use.
Justo Talkalottashit I don't often agree with Justice Kagan, but interruption is the nature of a 'hot bench'. Many cases allow much less time between interruptions. Besides, I would imagine the written portion provided the basis for the arguments on both sides. And it could be worse...check out some British court proceedings...
Justo Talkalottashit I think the key here is the solicitors have a position they want to advance but the justices sitting in judgement are already rather well informed about the issue being discussed.
Ultimately it's not about finishing the argument the justices already know you're making, it's about answering their questions because you have to convince them the position you hold is able to withstand challenge - often the questions are intended to test the limits of your argument and what happens when future cases would use your position as case law to support their positions.
I personally find the expanded religious exception argument to be a troubling sliperary slope, but the court clearly didn't given the eventual judgement.
We'll see if this is another Dread Scott or Citizens United, time will tell...
But this seemed a very vigorous and through test of the positions of the solicitors so I'm not concerned anyone didn't get the chance to present/represent their position. It turned out to be an idealogical decision, which might have been apparent from the questioning.
Deepest gratitude to you sir
Thanks for your comment. It makes the time spent worth it.
It is *stunning* how much of an impact this video makes. I am honestly listening to the entire case and even understanding/processing some of what is being said.
This is seriously the best idea I have seen in a very very long time.
This is amazing! There are some moments of excellent timing, and with such limited material. Really cool.
Thank you, Thank you.
I actually listened to this thing
The cut aways are so perfect when you can't find a scene that matches the speaker to another figure listening in. I think a lot of these tend to fail at that and try to focus all scnes on the one speaking only, this one shows meticulous pruning and scene cut away. Great job.
Thank you very much. It took about 18 hours to edit.
Absolutely awesome! It's the 2nd time I listened to entire oral arguments and this time I'm smiling!
This would be amazing for a teacher to use in class. I am way further into this than I expected.
Man I never realized how aggressive the conservative members of the court were, they wouldn't let the AG get more than ten words edgewise at a time! Thank you John Oliver.
Thanks for actually doing this!
Your welcome.
Great job! Just forwarded it my Law-student daughter.
Perfect
This is the first Supreme Court Case I've listened too. Honestly, I'm a bit surprised on how un-articulate some of these people are.
Been watching a few of these, and yours has the best editing I've seen. Nice job!
Thank you. I used to direct live city council meetings for the City of Lake Forest Il. and the Village of Lake Bluff.
I haven't touched my editing equipment in a few years. This project inspired me to wipe the dust off my system.
Thanks for the encouragement.
John Oliver for King. Amazing concept. He was serious - every case with dogs. I put in on with my breakfast. I'll start my classes with it. Listen learn laugh.
I love this. Thank you for making it!
Your Welcome.
Incredible!!!!! I want more!
Is nobody noticing how committed the hen is to her job?
I'm guessing there are probably little pieces of grain on the typewriter keys.
i'm captivated. thanks!
No Problem. Thanks for your comment.
Great stuff, excellently edited considering the limited material available.
Thank you Captain.
Jean~Luc Picard Captain Picard approves!
Love the duck and the chicken.
Some part of me wonders if background music could make things even more compelling.
I will give it a shot. Any suggestions on what music?
Phoenix Wright music?
Hilarious!
Thank you for doing this!
I watched it all....and it wasn't boring....and I learned a lot!!!!!
cant....stop....watching...
Bravo sir, bravo (slow clap)
This kicks so much ass. I actually care about this stuff now. Keep up the good work!
Thank you
Must take balls to be a lawyer whose job is to talk back to the friggin supreme court justices.
Just as Justice Kagan began talking about rape laws, the dog next to her began trying to humo her. I find this hilarious beyond mere words.
Thanks for seeing the details in the edit. :) Glad you enjoyed it.
I wish I knew how to make these. Ive got plenty of spare time to go thru every tanscript.
They used the perfect clip for Kagan's bit at 11:40 lmao
Awesome
Awesome!!!
Law school gets so much better in this moment !
This is epic!! Keep it up! :D
haha, at 24:40 ... "then it becomes a bit more of a loosey goosey analysis" the footage switches to the goose, nice
I can't stop smiling ...... is that bad?
Thank you for this I was writing a paper about this and this made listeding to it interesting haha
Omjesus. For one I never knew this audio was available I love just that but dear god the dogs. I would donate to you if you
make that happen.
Cool. I'm just waiting for kickstarter to approve my project. Since its my first kickstarter it can take 7-10 days to verify my information. Im really excited to get to work on another case.
Good News. I made it happen :) Please Donate here.
www.kickstarter.com/projects/1805649470/realanimalsfakepaws-supreme-court-oral-arguments
nailed it!
Here's something very simple: regardless of your religious beliefs, do contraceptives serve a valid health purpose? Yes. Oh my god yes; otherwise doctors wouldn't be so heavily involved with them.
So, should a company be required to provide health insurance that includes health care products and services they disagree with, or should things they find distasteful be the responsibility of the employee?
Well, would a Jehovah's Witness be allowed to deny someone a blood transfusion? Or force them to pay out of pocket for that? No. It's necessary for their well being, and as such should be covered under health insurance. Are contraceptives not under the same blanket? They are something that keep people safe and healthy. (I'll circle back to this later)
Now, there is a reasonable argument to be made that while blood transfusions are a life saving procedure used because of circumstances beyond the control of the person, whereas a person should always have the option of abstaining from sex. However, this is just the part that bugs me the most. The religious right wing shouldn't be able to dictate the personal lives of individuals. This is a basic personal liberty issue. They also fight to reduce access to, or outright abolish, abortion. Now, this is another huge issue that I don't want to get into. But I think it's fair to say that they shouldn't be able to have it both ways; sex, to most people, even religious people, isn't purely for the purpose of conceiving children. For the love of god, many churches approve it as a form of loving your spouse, and in the case of couples who can't conceive, lo and behold, it isn't a sin. So, sex is going to happen. Sex without the express intent of having kids can be condoned, even under religious ideals. They don't want to condone the termination of pregnancies, but they also want to make it *harder* to not get pregnant? No. You can't have it both ways. You can't control people, why punish them for the perfectly natural actions of consenting adults, or at the very least make it more difficult to exercise those actions?
And, the religious quandary that people have against contraception is not a moral one; again, they keep people safe and healthy. They prevent unwanted babies from being born (a sad occurrence), and prevent abortions from happening, because they prevent pregnancy. (And before a religious person starts on about that bible story where a dude pulled out and God didn't like it: 1) he was specifically instructed to have a kid and didn't, most people aren't being told by God IN PERSON to have a kid, and 2) our own bodily functions have the effect of our reproductive cells being "wasted" in not having children; nocturnal emissions in men and periods in women are the reproductive cells leaving the body and not creating a child; processes that by a devout religious person's own ideas God put in place; no different than we were born with the desire for sex. So just stop)
Now that that mini-rant is done, I'll circle back to my main point, which is that contraception has a public benefit, the only cost of which is a person has to accept that people are having sex. Which, if we're being fair, is what the religious objection to contraception is. /You're not having sex like -copper age monks- God wanted, so you're bad and I don't like it/
So, contraception is an important health care aspect (with a compelling interest to provide), and to deny an employee this is just yet another example of a religious person cherry picking a piece of their doctrine and interpreting it to judge another person's perfectly natural actions. Because I can guarantee you that Hobby Lobby isn't banning employees from bringing shellfish in their lunches or wearing multiple types of cloth, and that's in the bible too.
20k views? Holy shit.
To be fair, it's compelling. I'm still watching it.
detarame Google Analytics shows 52,928 minutes actually watched.
This is so frustrating. They need to hear the man's argument before they try to dissect it.
Amazing!
Thanks for sharing it :)
I wish the animals mouths moved that would would be the icing on the cake
OMA!(Oh My Allah!) This is of the Iblees pleasure. good effort to the souls doing this I type.
Thats the first time I have seen OMA... love it. A salaam alaikum.
Check out my kickstarter, it just went live.
www.kickstarter.com/projects/1805649470/realanimalsfakepaws-supreme-court-oral-arguments
Absolutely fantastic. #realanimalsfakepaws
omg, they did 90 minutes of that?
Tom Ligman Yup. I'm going to be working on the EPA case from last year myself
i love it!!!
Thank you. Please share it. Happy Thanksgiving.
I'm looking forward to Windsor v. United States, Kelo v. City of New London, Citizens United v. FEC, and to a lesser extent Bowman v. Monsanto... Flat broke, but you bet your sweet ass I'm going to facbook and tweet your kickstarter.
Thank you for your support.
My Kickstarter is live now. Thanks for helping out. I will take your suggestions on cases to heart. Here is the new link.
www.kickstarter.com/projects/1805649470/realanimalsfakepaws-supreme-court-oral-arguments
Don't worry about being flat broke, sometimes life is better that way... coming from another broke guy.
Hey, I wanted to try something like this as well for college, but I can't get the raw footage. If you can't tell me how to get it myself then I would like to request the case Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc.
ua-cam.com/video/tug71xZL7yc/v-deo.html
Why is sotomayor a chihuahua ?? THATS RACIST ! xD
The Notorious RBG is the chihuahua
mixbunny Woof Bader Ginsburg
She's a Boston Terrier.
I think the next step is for someone to use a program like facerig which is available on steam now for 10$. You would have to read the words to make it work but I think it would be worth it. This could be used for good or really bad evil.
Wow, you win the internet!
Sweet.
1st 5 seconds in and i love it. more please...thnx.
Your Welcome. Thank you for your reply and encouragement.
This is so cute
#RealAnimalsFakePaws
LMAO!!!
This was funny for the first 30 seconds. Now it's embarrassing.
Who does it embarrass and why?
ibmeruu It embarrasses Oliver, the writers, the producers, because it is one joke, over and over and over.
LazlosPlane its no longer a joke. 60k ppl have genuinely watched this debate. 60k who hadnt before because it seemed inaccessible. How is this a bad thing.?
gomika Good lord. It is not a matter of a "good thing," or a "bad thing." Morality does not enter here. It is a question of comedic quality. In comedy when you do something funny, you do it and move on. You don't "beat it to death." It is not "bad." It is not "funny."
You mean 60k clicked on the video. Does not mean they watched the whole thing and thought it was hilariously wonderful.
Millions have watched, "I'm All About That Bass." I guess that means it must be GREAT ART, by your standards.
LazlosPlane According to google analytics 70% of the Audience dropped out after watching approximately 5 mins. Of the remaining 18,429 people another 50% dropped out by 45 minutes. Leaving 9214 People who watched between 45 and 120 minutes. 1535 People actually watched the entire oral arguments.
John Oliver initiative is comical and cool.
But Supreme Court tapes are just too boring to listen even with the dogs trying to make it funny.
Thank you soooooo much for this!
Welcome.