It is amusing as it is clearly designed by a Hollywood liberal that does not like it when SCOTUS makes a decision liberals don't like. It's just TV, right? 😂😂 There's nothing here that is earth shattering but it is amusing.
Adoring forthright people, I just love the guy! As for being amusing, I never found him amusing in court, I found him Brilliant! And James Spader, WOW! An outstanding actor. No One could have pulled off this role better, with that being said, only Gene Hackman could have done as well in the court room scenes.
Damn. I did not watch this show but know of it. WOW!!! I am not a political person but James Spader aka Alan Shore did an absolutely wonderful job in speaking before SCOTUS. It was an accumulation of everything everyone would have wanted to say to them. He called them out and was as blunt as a two by four to most of them. Good job? That James Spader is an excellent actor.
@@tringuyen7519 Every "public servant" commits perjury when they get sworn into any kind of office or position. Because the founding fathers made two terrible mistake that would have changed the course history. Nr.1 In your capacity to hold such office you are not allowed to make any kind of profit, or get donations from outside sources which will influence your decisions and goals. You will get nothing beyond what the job pays you and if you get caught with a dollar more you get sent to prison for 25 years. Nr.2 No Justice is allowed to be younger than 38, not older than 65 and the maximum time you get to be a justice is 20 years.
I firmly believe there is no better asshole to pull anyone of any level up by the nuts than James Spader. He even pulled up IronMan by the brass danglers...
That whole series will always be up to date with modern politics. It wont ever be dated. History repeats itself time and time again. We never learn from it. Its just scary its only 20 years or so that its repeating....... Not thousands or even hundreds. We are regressing faster then we are progressing.
2023 and this video rings just as true and the SCOTUS is still nothing more than a rubber stamp for the uber rich and powerful… Too bad Shore couldn’t ask Reddington to deal with the problem!
Oh my God! I had never seen that episode and that particular scene was just totally badass. I am just watching this video in late August of 2022. And Alan Shore just disemboweled those justices. I mean really that just got me amped up like a flat of energy drinks and a 5 lb bag of sugar. Holy cow. What a classic.
@@JoshuaXYZ Judges today are bought and paid for by the Biden administration. Same thing under Trump. Whether you think Black Lives Matter or All Lives Matter, the other side is rigging the judicial system.
Aint it the truth!!! Honesty, integrity and honor from our government officials are considered character flaws today!!! Greed graft and furthering a personal agenda are now the norm for people who are supposed to be representing US, but instead are representing themselves and special interest groups!!! Is it really any wonder the government isn’t trusted or believed anymore today!!!???
I support term limits for ALL POLITICIANS, JUSTICES. I ALSO SUPPORT NO LIFETIME FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL POLITICIANS, LET THEM PAY FOR IT JUST LIKE US.
You would need to also push for government reform and to make it smaller - and get rid of the union - without reforms this would end up giving even more power to the unelected govt employees.
@@timh8324 You're not going to get rid of unions, and since everyone has their favorite government agencies that they see as indispensable, its doubtful that you'll ever shrink government by any meaningful amount.
I wonder if it would be possible to make a channel dedicated to the actual cases, they have material from literally over a decade ago that has become more relevant. But have scenes just in court and only outside of court if they are spesific and important to the case and leave out any of the regular day to day office drama. Not because that wasn't entertaining to watch. It's just... well. Its pretty much impossible to recommend this show to someone under 30 because they won't have any concept that certain things were still different. And admittedly some of those certain things have not exactly aged well. I'm pretty sure even some of the actual crimes Alan commits during the show would not be seen as a crime by those viewers while the things he says would land him in the darkest of social outcast jails cell you could find. But unlike other shows at the time, there still was a sense of self-awareness where they actually discussed the messiness off it. Although I do firmly believe that those elements keeps it from getting brought up like other shows of the time. The only character who came with that level of complexity in a regular tv that wasn't HBO was House.
RE: recommending this show to persons under 30, the same hold true for most of your older cartoons, as well as shows like Laugh-In. Younger persons just wouldn't understand most of the jokes, nor even recognise the little nuances.
@@madamrockford2508 Some jokes or nuances are certainly not time proof. It's why only a small % of stand ups have material that you can still watch to this day and laugh just as hard if not harder because what was a joke has become reality. And it's possible that they just are not able to recognize it. But often it seems they are specifically looking to get offended as if it gives them the moral high ground. We used to have people like that when I was growing up, it was called the Christian Right. In your wildest dreams, when it was almost considered the late night host low hanging fruit to talk about what the Christian Right was offended by this week. Could you ever imagine those two sides switching places on this spesific topic?
@@susanboone5328 You mean through amendment? Those are exceptionally hard to pass in the USA. Under my constitution: Supreme Court judges would serve till 75 (like in Brazil) The constitution would fix the nuber of justices to prevent court packing (like in Brazil), Supreme Court judges would need to have served as a federal judge for at least 15 years before being appointed and all judges would need to have served as some form of prosecutor or assistant judge for 5 years before being appointed Supreme Court and appeals court judges would need approval of 2/3 of the full senate (67 senators) for confirmation
Obviously, this scene, the writing, the actors sitting as Justices were incredible, and holy cow, could anyone but James Spader pull this off so eloquently?
This video should be sent to every present (2022) Supreme Court Justice and perhaps a few hundred times each...or more...?...😎. And I must add that James Spader brought this character and Boston Legal to life like nobody else.
Congress and the senate need term limits too!!! There are too many senile old farts there that need to retire and make way for some younger people to get in there.
I swear. We have a minimum age limit to these positions. But we also need a maximum. We can't have people over 50 or 60 in important positions. We need people who have some lfie experience and still young enough to do the leg work
Valid point Railnut but as a wise man of fiction said "Makers of men, creators of leaders; be careful what leaders you're producing here" So many younger candidates much like those already in office have been so ideologically compromised through subversion and influence that the odds of having an impartial individual are slim to none existent.
I don't think that it is so much that we need age limits, but we need people in office who are actually COMPETENT in the subject matter of what they are writing laws regulating... If you are not a doctor, you shouldn't be writing legislation that regulates healthcare... And I think that ALL politicians should be required to do their own taxes BY HAND -- no using spreadsheets or TurboTax...
I would love to see a spin off of this show featuring Denny & Alan, and a few others: The Texan "the smiling hoot," the Blonde from England, Jerry Espenson, & Clarence.
That would just be more Boston Legal, the show itself was a spin off of The practice because both the network and David e. Kelly loved what Spader was doing with the character. It would also become a more serious show, by the time the final season starts Denny is clearly getting worse at a rate which at best would have him live for another 10 years, with maybe 5 good years left. It is however a shame that Spader and Shatner seemed to be very good working colleagues and respected each other, but were not really friends. I always hoped that Shatner would eventually turn up on Blacklist even if it was just for an episode, even though I hoped for a significant two-three parter or maybe even one of their mini arcs that would last half a season.
@@Iansco1 I remember people saying that plot with the Chinese was racist, yet after it started happening in real life. Now tons of countries that are some of the most progressive has started banning certain Chinese products or refuse companies getting bought out by a Chinese corporation because there isn't actually a difference between that and their government. Turns out people are able to distinguish the difference between being against the people leading the country because of how dictatorial it is. And not having any hate for Chinese people. Turns out, even though Alan would get roasted on social media for his let's be honest. Certain things that have aged the same way certain Bond movies have. When it came to the big picture he was written as if he was 20 years ahead of everyone else. I wish Kelly would write a special that could work and be filmed as a mostly 1 man play. Giving us one final Alan monologue. Showing how we have repeated so much of the same things in the first half before doing a monologue about the new.
I don't necessarily think SCotUS should have term limits. I do think there should be a no confidence vote for every seated SC Justice offered on every national level ballot, and if a majority vote is reached for a seat (or all the seats), that seat is required to be vacated and reappointed.
I agree with your last point. but nobody should get a life appointment with no set retirement age. it's a recipe for abuse. and I would offer, there should be more of them and then they should be randomly picked for cases. They turn down legit cases all of the time. it should never come to that IF we are a nation of laws
@@tracewallace23 Did you watch the west wing series? I think they had a point, some justices will try to stay in office until the right president is in to maintain the balance of the court.
@@burstcity3832 I didn't watch West Wing (it's in my "to do list") 🙂 While that may have been the plan for some justices, there isn't any "balance" in our Supreme Court now😵💫
@@tracewallace23 Thats very true, its quite a problem having too many judges thinking the same. West wing is still one of the best shows I've watched, I like scifi generally speaking but I have watched west wing 3 times over the years.
Yeah. The whole point of them being for life was so they wouldn't have to worry about pissing off someone they might need to ask for a job later. Still, it is time to admit that has serious problems and see if there isn't some better way to address the issue.
@@spyone4828 It begins with the politicians that select and OK them. But there are enough bought and sold politicians in extremely key positions that entrenchment in our present situation is a given. The only way I see out of this is for these dunderheads becoming self aware of the damage they're doing while still in office and actually doing something to right the ship. The voters aren't going to vote out the bad ones. They've proven that time and time again. How the hell does Mitch McConnell keep getting re-elected. The same reason every other obviously corrupt politician does. By voters with their heads up their butts while still complaining of the stink. Talk about a lack of awareness.
@@spyone4828 they're only 9 people. We can pay them the same salary after their term ends, bar them from holding any paid positions... stuff like that.
@@threenumbnuts Who in their right mind wants to sit around doing nothing - unpaid after that - seems stupid. Plus you would run the risk of people pushing certain things because they would view their time as short and they would push more stuff to make a difference and to make their short times impactful instead of just always doing the right thing
I don't know who is more prophetic: David Kelley (Boston Legal) or Aaron Sorkin (Newsroom). I just got done bingeing Newsroom and just wanted to stand up and say "Amen" after Jeff Daniels opening monologue when asked "why is America the greatest country in the world.
He is right. We PRETEND we are #1 in everything. We are mid DOUBLE DIGIT ranking in Math and Science now. We have grown DAMNED ADULTS who insist that "Order of Operations" is "new, made up math. I was taught the math operator does not matter. Left to right IN ORDER of left to right!". Grown Damned adults old enough to REMEBER as teens or adults when "In God We Trust" and "One nation under God" were added. In 1954. Not 1776. And my personal peeve. There are people who think that they were EVER taught in "Civics" that you live in one senate district or the other. And you only vote for senate once every 6 years because you are only allowed to vote for the Senator in YOUR DISTRICT.
The only thing that made me laugh harder than the guy saying “oh god” was seeing Denny crane, THE Denny crane, shrink further and further into his chair
How to make a comment, that Alan ( and the uploader's comments) hasn't already said better. Kelley is one of the best writers for legal shows. Spader is one of the best actors for delivering a speech. Term limits on SCOTUS is a must. Calls for packing that court is a near-sighted idea. I can only say that it's been 14 years since this episode, situation has gotten worse over the years.
Adoring forthright people, I just love Alan Shore; a Superb character, Truly Brilliant! And James Spader, WOW! An outstanding actor to be sure. No One could have pulled off his court room antics better! With that being said, only Gene Hackman could have done as well.
If you don't learn from your past...you are doomed to repeat it. And...in 2022...we are. No justice should be on that bench longer than 20 years and, they should be appointed by a panel, not a President.
You see this scene and think: "Thank god this only happens in fiction..." And then you watch it happen with that judge who helped Trump appoint a Special Master....when she had no jurisdiction to do so....when she was called out to be the one HE HAND APPOINTED to be a judge.....
@@sholamoses7800 He won both. Both wins are mentioned in the show, and they’re also based off real cases presented to the SCOTUS. Final episode shows that he won his 2nd case to get Denny the drug, and there’s also that episode where Melvin mentions to the judge how Alan went off on the Supreme Court but still won his case. I’m happy to provide details about the real cases if you want. I looked up the victories a while back.
@@therealnav214 I will like to know details if you wouldn't mind because I can remember one of the cases where he represented a guy on death row with diminished capacity, and Alan Shore lost that case then went on to witness his execution.
I would agree if he didn't only go after the judged on the right because I'm sure the ones on the left have their hands in the pockets of some very rich powerful people
My only question would be "what should the term limits be?" If they only sit there during the current president's tenure then it gives the president the power of 2 branches of government.
Proponents of term limits generally suggest 18 years, with a new term starting every 2 years. This would enable each President to appoints 2 justices for every four year Presidential term.
Term limits yes, as the founders had intended but based on a sitcom video spouting narrow and unsubstantiated rants? Then you are no better than those you accuse. And that's where you lose me.
To which unsubstantiated rants do you refer to? Big Oil is showing profits so huge that it is obscene. Roe v Wade was overturned even AFTER the 3 new justices swore under oath that they would not change it. Black people in the south have a higher chance of being incarcerated than a white person who commits the same crime. The list goes on but I think you get my point. If you view them as narrow that is because there was only so much time this episode could allot to these subjects. As far as I could ascertain, everything that was pointed out had actually happened at that time and are continuing to happen today.
Seems like a solution would be a constitutional amendment that makes it so the court always has an odd number (no dead even decisions), matches the # of federal court districts (minus 1 if the number is even, newest is out), and make it such that whenever a justice retires or dies in office the most senior judge of that federal court district automatically assumes the office. Removes politics of the moment out of the equation when selecting justices, a practice that both sides of the aisle regularly employ when selecting judges. The discussion should be around putting term limits on congress, not on the judges. The court needs to be stable, congress needs to be ever changing. Judges are to rule on the law as written, not play games of the political day. The job of congress is to update laws to reflect changes in society and you can only accomplish that through new members who come out of the real world. Not career politicians who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
Then it is just a reflection of the district courts... That's not acceptable... What we need is for the justices to understand that the Constitution is what is important and that they must base their decisions on what IT SAYS, not what some previous politically motivated court decided... The ONLY precedence should be the Constitution...
Imagine, if you will, if the Senate, those that are charged with vetting the Justices, were representatives of the States in stead of the people, as in the original plan. Instead of the corruption of monopolies at the state level, we have moved that same corruption up to the federal level, with ever increasing corporations that now operate on a world wide basis, then we wonder why so much money is in politics, and all the corruption that comes with it.
Raise your hand if your watching this in 2022 and no longer find this amusing. Love Alan Shore, the prophet.
This was posted July 8, 2022. Literally everyone watching right now is watching in 2022.
Amen brother
It is amusing as it is clearly designed by a Hollywood liberal that does not like it when SCOTUS makes a decision liberals don't like. It's just TV, right? 😂😂 There's nothing here that is earth shattering but it is amusing.
I find it amusing that it triggers baby fetus killers
Adoring forthright people, I
just love the guy!
As for being amusing, I never found him amusing in court, I found him Brilliant! And James Spader, WOW! An outstanding actor. No One could have pulled off this role better, with that being said, only Gene Hackman could have done as well in the court room scenes.
Damn. I did not watch this show but know of it. WOW!!! I am not a political person but James Spader aka Alan Shore did an absolutely wonderful job in speaking before SCOTUS. It was an accumulation of everything everyone would have wanted to say to them. He called them out and was as blunt as a two by four to most of them. Good job? That James Spader is an excellent actor.
Wow, this scene aged very well
It's now 2022, how well this has aged...OMG!!!
It’s because it’s true. SCOTUS is very political and not independent. And yes, the justices committed perjury in their confirmation.
It really. Petulance is never timely. It’s pathetic actually.
@@tringuyen7519 Every "public servant" commits perjury when they get sworn into any kind of office or position. Because the founding fathers made two terrible mistake that would have changed the course history.
Nr.1 In your capacity to hold such office you are not allowed to make any kind of profit, or get donations from outside sources which will influence your decisions and goals. You will get nothing beyond what the job pays you and if you get caught with a dollar more you get sent to prison for 25 years.
Nr.2 No Justice is allowed to be younger than 38, not older than 65 and the maximum time you get to be a justice is 20 years.
Bullshit
Damn I wish this show was back on again. It was always on point.
👍👍👍👍
Ever wonder if that is Exactly Why it's not? 🤔
i still have all 5 seasons complete
Absolutely phenomenal acting, James spader is incredible
He's underated.
I firmly believe there is no better asshole to pull anyone of any level up by the nuts than James Spader. He even pulled up IronMan by the brass danglers...
We were watching reality TV and didn't know it.
You got that right, they always sneak in the truth in TV shows and movies.
Sometimes one might be tempted to believe we are in a simulation
This is truer today than it was when it was filmed. There is so much politics in the SCOTUS that it's ridiculous.
That whole series will always be up to date with modern politics. It wont ever be dated. History repeats itself time and time again. We never learn from it.
Its just scary its only 20 years or so that its repeating....... Not thousands or even hundreds.
We are regressing faster then we are progressing.
2023 and this video rings just as true and the SCOTUS is still nothing more than a rubber stamp for the uber rich and powerful…
Too bad Shore couldn’t ask Reddington to deal with the problem!
Oh my God! I had never seen that episode and that particular scene was just totally badass. I am just watching this video in late August of 2022. And Alan Shore just disemboweled those justices. I mean really that just got me amped up like a flat of energy drinks and a 5 lb bag of sugar. Holy cow. What a classic.
This commentary on SCOTUS appears to be more true than ever
Doesn't it? And still we're controlled by the narrow agendas of people who don't know how to consider that they might be wrong.
@@JoshuaXYZ Judges today are bought and paid for by the Biden administration. Same thing under Trump. Whether you think Black Lives Matter or All Lives Matter, the other side is rigging the judicial system.
@@JoshuaXYZ And justices and legislators practicing medicine without a license - while having zero knowledge of how the human body functions.
Aint it the truth!!!
Honesty, integrity and honor from our government officials are considered character flaws today!!!
Greed graft and furthering a personal agenda are now the norm for people who are supposed to be representing US, but instead are representing themselves and special interest groups!!!
Is it really any wonder the government isn’t trusted or believed anymore today!!!???
I support term limits for ALL POLITICIANS, JUSTICES. I ALSO SUPPORT NO LIFETIME FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL POLITICIANS, LET THEM PAY FOR IT JUST LIKE US.
They do pay for it.
Here's my magic fix all bullet. Someone else said it, but I'm claiming it! Hey, fire truck u!!
You would need to also push for government reform and to make it smaller - and get rid of the union - without reforms this would end up giving even more power to the unelected govt employees.
@@timh8324 You're not going to get rid of unions, and since everyone has their favorite government agencies that they see as indispensable, its doubtful that you'll ever shrink government by any meaningful amount.
who needs lawyers if judges are for sale?
This. Is. Perfect.
I wonder if it would be possible to make a channel dedicated to the actual cases, they have material from literally over a decade ago that has become more relevant. But have scenes just in court and only outside of court if they are spesific and important to the case and leave out any of the regular day to day office drama. Not because that wasn't entertaining to watch. It's just... well.
Its pretty much impossible to recommend this show to someone under 30 because they won't have any concept that certain things were still different. And admittedly some of those certain things have not exactly aged well. I'm pretty sure even some of the actual crimes Alan commits during the show would not be seen as a crime by those viewers while the things he says would land him in the darkest of social outcast jails cell you could find. But unlike other shows at the time, there still was a sense of self-awareness where they actually discussed the messiness off it.
Although I do firmly believe that those elements keeps it from getting brought up like other shows of the time. The only character who came with that level of complexity in a regular tv that wasn't HBO was House.
RE: recommending this show to persons under 30, the same hold true for most of your older cartoons, as well as shows like Laugh-In. Younger persons just wouldn't understand most of the jokes, nor even recognise the little nuances.
@@madamrockford2508 Some jokes or nuances are certainly not time proof. It's why only a small % of stand ups have material that you can still watch to this day and laugh just as hard if not harder because what was a joke has become reality.
And it's possible that they just are not able to recognize it. But often it seems they are specifically looking to get offended as if it gives them the moral high ground. We used to have people like that when I was growing up, it was called the Christian Right. In your wildest dreams, when it was almost considered the late night host low hanging fruit to talk about what the Christian Right was offended by this week. Could you ever imagine those two sides switching places on this spesific topic?
Blah blah blah
@@dwpalme2670 great insight
Nice get Susan. This applies perfectly, and unfortunately more so today, these 15 years later
Agreed. It blew my mind when I saw this the other day when I was channel surfing.
@@susanboone5328 Term limits aren't possible under the current constitution.
Wow did the writers see the future?!
@@reviewreviewer1 true, but with enough pressure and people to back the idea it could be.
@@susanboone5328 You mean through amendment? Those are exceptionally hard to pass in the USA.
Under my constitution:
Supreme Court judges would serve till 75 (like in Brazil)
The constitution would fix the nuber of justices to prevent court packing (like in Brazil),
Supreme Court judges would need to have served as a federal judge for at least 15 years before being appointed
and all judges would need to have served as some form of prosecutor or assistant judge for 5 years before being appointed
Supreme Court and appeals court judges would need approval of 2/3 of the full senate (67 senators) for confirmation
After watching this it seemed like it was originally recorded last week. I forgot how bad SCOTUS was back then. Now they're even worse.
Agreed
Obviously, this scene, the writing, the actors sitting as Justices were incredible, and holy cow, could anyone but James Spader pull this off so eloquently?
James Woods, maybe........ It would be different but likely good.
@@Iansco1 Spadar’s photographic memory is the reason he could even memorize something this long to do it in one take. I doubt James Wood could.
This video should be sent to every present (2022) Supreme Court Justice and perhaps a few hundred times each...or more...?...😎.
And I must add that James Spader brought this character and Boston Legal to life like nobody else.
James Spader is the man!
Congress and the senate need term limits too!!! There are too many senile old farts there that need to retire and make way for some younger people to get in there.
I swear. We have a minimum age limit to these positions. But we also need a maximum. We can't have people over 50 or 60 in important positions. We need people who have some lfie experience and still young enough to do the leg work
Valid point Railnut but as a wise man of fiction said "Makers of men, creators of leaders; be careful what leaders you're producing here"
So many younger candidates much like those already in office have been so ideologically compromised through subversion and influence that the odds of having an impartial individual are slim to none existent.
It’s better than having a wish-washy children who get distracted by the latest “relevant” shiny thing without thought about the long game
@@totallybored5526 Better to have wishy-washy senile bats who get distracted by the literal shiney?
I don't think that it is so much that we need age limits, but we need people in office who are actually COMPETENT in the subject matter of what they are writing laws regulating... If you are not a doctor, you shouldn't be writing legislation that regulates healthcare... And I think that ALL politicians should be required to do their own taxes BY HAND -- no using spreadsheets or TurboTax...
I would love to see a spin off of this show featuring Denny & Alan, and a few others: The Texan "the smiling hoot," the Blonde from England, Jerry Espenson, & Clarence.
That would just be more Boston Legal, the show itself was a spin off of The practice because both the network and David e. Kelly loved what Spader was doing with the character.
It would also become a more serious show, by the time the final season starts Denny is clearly getting worse at a rate which at best would have him live for another 10 years, with maybe 5 good years left. It is however a shame that Spader and Shatner seemed to be very good working colleagues and respected each other, but were not really friends. I always hoped that Shatner would eventually turn up on Blacklist even if it was just for an episode, even though I hoped for a significant two-three parter or maybe even one of their mini arcs that would last half a season.
2 words: Donny Crane!
@@celestialnubian Denny Crane!
@@dcworld4349 That last scene with the Chinese was hillarious.
@@Iansco1 I remember people saying that plot with the Chinese was racist, yet after it started happening in real life. Now tons of countries that are some of the most progressive has started banning certain Chinese products or refuse companies getting bought out by a Chinese corporation because there isn't actually a difference between that and their government.
Turns out people are able to distinguish the difference between being against the people leading the country because of how dictatorial it is. And not having any hate for Chinese people.
Turns out, even though Alan would get roasted on social media for his let's be honest. Certain things that have aged the same way certain Bond movies have. When it came to the big picture he was written as if he was 20 years ahead of everyone else. I wish Kelly would write a special that could work and be filmed as a mostly 1 man play. Giving us one final Alan monologue. Showing how we have repeated so much of the same things in the first half before doing a monologue about the new.
Here after the Blacklist. James is a treasure 🖤
I don't necessarily think SCotUS should have term limits. I do think there should be a no confidence vote for every seated SC Justice offered on every national level ballot, and if a majority vote is reached for a seat (or all the seats), that seat is required to be vacated and reappointed.
I agree with your last point. but nobody should get a life appointment with no set retirement age. it's a recipe for abuse.
and I would offer, there should be more of them and then they should be randomly picked for cases. They turn down legit cases all of the time. it should never come to that IF we are a nation of laws
@@tracewallace23 Did you watch the west wing series? I think they had a point, some justices will try to stay in office until the right president is in to maintain the balance of the court.
@@burstcity3832 I didn't watch West Wing (it's in my "to do list") 🙂
While that may have been the plan for some justices, there isn't any "balance" in our Supreme Court now😵💫
@@tracewallace23 Thats very true, its quite a problem having too many judges thinking the same. West wing is still one of the best shows I've watched, I like scifi generally speaking but I have watched west wing 3 times over the years.
I'm watching this September 15, 2023 and this speech could have been made yesterday and it would still be relevant.
Term limits for Supreme Court justices would make the court more political. Not less.
Yeah. The whole point of them being for life was so they wouldn't have to worry about pissing off someone they might need to ask for a job later.
Still, it is time to admit that has serious problems and see if there isn't some better way to address the issue.
It's a shame that this is true but yes, you're right.
@@spyone4828 It begins with the politicians that select and OK them. But there are enough bought and sold politicians in extremely key positions that entrenchment in our present situation is a given. The only way I see out of this is for these dunderheads becoming self aware of the damage they're doing while still in office and actually doing something to right the ship. The voters aren't going to vote out the bad ones. They've proven that time and time again. How the hell does Mitch McConnell keep getting re-elected. The same reason every other obviously corrupt politician does. By voters with their heads up their butts while still complaining of the stink. Talk about a lack of awareness.
@@spyone4828 they're only 9 people. We can pay them the same salary after their term ends, bar them from holding any paid positions... stuff like that.
@@threenumbnuts Who in their right mind wants to sit around doing nothing - unpaid after that - seems stupid. Plus you would run the risk of people pushing certain things because they would view their time as short and they would push more stuff to make a difference and to make their short times impactful instead of just always doing the right thing
I don't know who is more prophetic: David Kelley (Boston Legal) or Aaron Sorkin (Newsroom). I just got done bingeing Newsroom and just wanted to stand up and say "Amen" after Jeff Daniels opening monologue when asked "why is America the greatest country in the world.
He is right. We PRETEND we are #1 in everything. We are mid DOUBLE DIGIT ranking in Math and Science now. We have grown DAMNED ADULTS who insist that "Order of Operations" is "new, made up math. I was taught the math operator does not matter. Left to right IN ORDER of left to right!". Grown Damned adults old enough to REMEBER as teens or adults when "In God We Trust" and "One nation under God" were added. In 1954. Not 1776. And my personal peeve. There are people who think that they were EVER taught in "Civics" that you live in one senate district or the other. And you only vote for senate once every 6 years because you are only allowed to vote for the Senator in YOUR DISTRICT.
And here we in 2022.
more ppl should watch this clip and get infuriated with these SCOTUS appointments
Because the appointments didn't go your way?
@@jrcahill2 because lifetime USSC appointments should not 'go' anybody's 'way.' Did you actually listen to the clip?
Yep, get rid of the last remaining libturds
James Spader discovering his Raymond Reddington character at 2:05.
Oh. Alan found Red way before this. I think Big Tobacco Ep predates this. Same Sex Attraction Disorder ep too.
The only thing that made me laugh harder than the guy saying “oh god” was seeing Denny crane, THE Denny crane, shrink further and further into his chair
I like your thinking Ms. Boone.
Wow this is so fucking relevant right now,
It's a living nightmare
Thomas' "Hey!" is the funniest fucking thing
thats a pretty good rant. i was actually at the supreme court the day roe vs wade was overturned true story.
so what was that like?
How relevant.
This show predict the future.
David E. Kelley has been seeing the decline of the justice system for a very long time
How to make a comment, that Alan ( and the uploader's comments) hasn't already said better.
Kelley is one of the best writers for legal shows. Spader is one of the best actors for delivering a speech.
Term limits on SCOTUS is a must. Calls for packing that court is a near-sighted idea.
I can only say that it's been 14 years since this episode, situation has gotten worse over the years.
James Spader the finest actor this universe has ever produced in its 4 billion years history…Denny Crane.
This could have been today, BRILLIANT FORESIGHT
It sounds like the 2022 court.
Who wrote this episode?
Wow.. this could be yesterday. Everything he said is still painfully relevant
Thank you, Susan.
Wow never knew Rip went from selling blow to becoming a lawyer
Please, please, PLEASE refilm this scene for today and combine Spader's Shore with Reddington!!
Adoring forthright people, I
just love Alan Shore; a Superb character, Truly Brilliant! And James Spader, WOW! An outstanding actor to be sure. No One could have pulled off his court room antics better! With that being said, only Gene Hackman could have done as well.
Good call!
Scarily prescient.
Never watched this show and now know why. Ridiculous.
You do realise this is FICTION and NOT reality TV, don't you??
Never read comments from triggered conservatives and now know why. Ridiculous.
My 1st binge.
Knowing what i know of Scalia, he probably would have and could have acted his own part here, with no change to the script.
Icarus wasn’t falling from his defeat!!!
But from his victory !!!
His arguments are just !!!
We the people bend over !!!
God bless Alan Shore and Boston Legal.
If you don't learn from your past...you are doomed to repeat it. And...in 2022...we are. No justice should be on that bench longer than 20 years and, they should be appointed by a panel, not a President.
just imagine if Boston Legal is still running, how much material Alan Shore would have 😅
Well, this aged f**king horribly well.
Well his aged like fucking wine.
You see this scene and think: "Thank god this only happens in fiction..."
And then you watch it happen with that judge who helped Trump appoint a Special Master....when she had no jurisdiction to do so....when she was called out to be the one HE HAND APPOINTED to be a judge.....
This happened before and it will happen again.
Some crime simply cry out for ultimate justice. Making the bad guy or gal - go away... means they'll never ever ever re-offend.
This is what all lawyers should be doing - advocate.
Rewatched the whole series, all still relevant today unfortunately
I believe it was Winston C. who said,"All power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts ...........absolutely." { Roe V. Wade }
From the group that brought you, Dred Scott.
Mr Reddington will see you now....
And he still won his case too. I wish Shirley could have been there to hear this, given how much she resonates with Alan’s legal ethics and passion.
I don't think he won any case at the SCOTUS, they went twice and lost twice.
@@sholamoses7800 He won both. Both wins are mentioned in the show, and they’re also based off real cases presented to the SCOTUS. Final episode shows that he won his 2nd case to get Denny the drug, and there’s also that episode where Melvin mentions to the judge how Alan went off on the Supreme Court but still won his case. I’m happy to provide details about the real cases if you want. I looked up the victories a while back.
@@therealnav214 I will like to know details if you wouldn't mind because I can remember one of the cases where he represented a guy on death row with diminished capacity, and Alan Shore lost that case then went on to witness his execution.
Yes, he can speak. 🙏
This is hapenning in Brazil rigth now! God bless us down here...
Was Spader even acting or just given a bunch of facts and free form ranting? Damn!
Rings so true today with SCOTUS.
A little late adding my AMEN to this. Absolute term limits to the Supreme Court!!!!!!
Accurate, sadly.
I would agree if he didn't only go after the judged on the right because I'm sure the ones on the left have their hands in the pockets of some very rich powerful people
Alan Shore was right as usual
Did David E. Kelly have a time machine???
No kidding.
Except for the dead ones could be just yesterday. But Kavanaugh would require a rewrite. It would be delicious.
I remember this episode well and I only wish someone would have the nerve to call them out on their bullshit…..
The voters can make the GOP pay.
@@Patricia-zt8ub Unless the Dems gain 67+ votes in the Senate? They are there for LIFE.
Wow! My words exactly!
3:17 HELL YES ON TERM LIMITS!!! They have been there far too long already.
Outstanding
My only question would be "what should the term limits be?" If they only sit there during the current president's tenure then it gives the president the power of 2 branches of government.
Proponents of term limits generally suggest 18 years, with a new term starting every 2 years. This would enable each President to appoints 2 justices for every four year Presidential term.
@@glennkurtzrock What happens when a justice dies, retires, or is impeached from their position?
Real life, one sentence relating to them. Prison
Bravo! Spot on.
wow prophetic
Love the woman they had to stand in for RBG.
Term limits yes, as the founders had intended but based on a sitcom video spouting narrow and unsubstantiated rants? Then you are no better than those you accuse. And that's where you lose me.
To which unsubstantiated rants do you refer to? Big Oil is showing profits so huge that it is obscene. Roe v Wade was overturned even AFTER the 3 new justices swore under oath that they would not change it. Black people in the south have a higher chance of being incarcerated than a white person who commits the same crime. The list goes on but I think you get my point. If you view them as narrow that is because there was only so much time this episode could allot to these subjects. As far as I could ascertain, everything that was pointed out had actually happened at that time and are continuing to happen today.
@@susanboone5328 Amen !!!
Imagine basing your political positions on whether or not a TV show justified them to your satisfaction..
The only network show I ever could tolerate.
the more things stay the same, or just get worse
Seems like a solution would be a constitutional amendment that makes it so the court always has an odd number (no dead even decisions), matches the # of federal court districts (minus 1 if the number is even, newest is out), and make it such that whenever a justice retires or dies in office the most senior judge of that federal court district automatically assumes the office.
Removes politics of the moment out of the equation when selecting justices, a practice that both sides of the aisle regularly employ when selecting judges.
The discussion should be around putting term limits on congress, not on the judges. The court needs to be stable, congress needs to be ever changing. Judges are to rule on the law as written, not play games of the political day. The job of congress is to update laws to reflect changes in society and you can only accomplish that through new members who come out of the real world. Not career politicians who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
It is odd. People will resist 13.
Then it is just a reflection of the district courts... That's not acceptable... What we need is for the justices to understand that the Constitution is what is important and that they must base their decisions on what IT SAYS, not what some previous politically motivated court decided... The ONLY precedence should be the Constitution...
Still Spot On!
Damn, he called it!!! All that he argued, has now occurred in the year 2022.... Ppl, it's all about the BENJAMINS, & that's FACT!
I miss shows likes this.
This, West Wing and Newsroom
too little, too late; it was a good run.
More accurate than the Simpsons?
or
is it that they've just been a corrupted organization for this long?
I enjoyed the Practice much more than Boston Legal
Term limits make it de facto political.. a proper selection process and vetting a better alternative. Follow the Constitution
Imagine, if you will, if the Senate, those that are charged with vetting the Justices, were representatives of the States in stead of the people, as in the original plan. Instead of the corruption of monopolies at the state level, we have moved that same corruption up to the federal level, with ever increasing corporations that now operate on a world wide basis, then we wonder why so much money is in politics, and all the corruption that comes with it.
He said what we all want to say.
Damn right, term li its for Supreme Court justices!
spot on.
and now it's so much worse. Where did the country go?