US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: A Presentation on International Law
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- The Blum Center for Developing Economies Presents:
"International Law"
A presentation by US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, followed by a conversation with Dean Christopher Edley, UC Berkeley School of Law.
Stephen Breyer, born in San Francisco in 1938, is a graduate of Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard Law School. He taught law for many years at Harvard and has also worked as a Supreme Court law clerk, a Justice Department lawyer, an Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutor, and Chief Counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1990 he was appointed an appellate court judge by President Carter. In 1994 he was appointed a Supreme Court Justice by President Clinton.
Sponsors: Blum Center for Developing Economies, International House
blumcenter.berkeley.edu/
ihouse.berkeley.edu/
Justice Breyer is a great judge and a great teacher. Thanks for this terrific video.
Thank You
...also, off the top of my head, I would recommend reading the case Saenz v. Roe (either 1998 or 1999 I think). You will find a strong, majority ruling for justice of the disenfranchised few, but if you read the dissent you will find an equally strong argument for the protection for the well-being of the majority over the few..
I thought the exact same way as you guys before I started to study law.. Its so easy to blame decisions we don't like on irrelevant arguments.... Cont.
Who could possibly hate stepehen breyer? He's wonderful!
How economic law affect the international law and how to manage conflict with regards to this matter
How can connect to international constitution base on international law
Sharing my experience, in a common sense, Brazil has one of the most secure and developed laws, but in fact it's not very observed by the authorities the feedback about performing the rules and law.
Thumbs up if you saw the letter "K" on Justice Breyer's forehead. hahaha
Obviously, not ALL foreign law is going to stand up to American standards, but we should certainly be smart enough to recognize GOOD law, no matter where it comes from. Considering the fact that we all live on the same planet and are separated by (mostly) invisible borders, international law will inevitably become more and more of a legitimate factor.
Our entire "common law" legal system is in itself foreign (imported almost entirely from Great Britain).. Sure, we made a Constitution and a plethora of statutory law on top of it, but the basic principle is entirely non-American. Don't you think it's a bit naive to simply ignore perfectly sound legal principles, simply on the basis that its foreign? You forget that this is America! This country was built by many nationalities and foreign ideas. That's what makes it so strong.... Cont.
That's really funny. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that his tie is usually always under a robe, so he's not used to making sure it looks okay after the knot.
During the classical-legal era (1886-1937) you would be partially correct; however, with the FDR administration and FDR Court, Constitutional interpretation has become increasingly expansive to protect lower classes. Without a Supreme Court there would be absolutely no Constitutional rights and 49% of America would potentially be at the mercy of 51% -- a tyrany of the majority. But thats why we have Ammendments (requiring 2/3 vote and states to ratify) to override the S.C.
i concur with the tie comment.
Hello. Pardon me for interrupting your game with the omnipresent one, but maybe we can discuss WHY all these international cases are coming before the US Supreme Ct. Isn't it obviously because of something unique people see in our system? Maybe they find us more objective & trustworthy than the courts in the plaintiffs' countries? If so, why the hell should our ct. site foreign decisions if they're unreliable? Simply, if I want American justice, I don't want foreign decisions? Agree?
Relax. I never mentioned anything about other government types, such as the Parliamentary system.. I honestly don't know much about how it works, but I'm sure there is some sort of protection against laws that breach civil rights; the Supreme Court is ours.
If you actually read the US Constitution you would understand that it relies on a series of checks and balances to protect Constitutional Rights.. Removing one piece of the system would disrupt that balance.
I'm sorry that you could agree with someone like Omni, but there is a reason why Judges are appointed for life--it's precisely to avoid political agendas. SC Judges do not answer to anyone; therefore, they are not concerned with politics. Instead of people complaining about the SC all the time, maybe they should go and actually READ some of their famous Opinions and Dissents. You will find that both sides make VERY sound arguments and that BOTH seem to have the law on their side. Its tough work.
...but the main point that I took away from studying law, is that there is no perfect method of applying Law. However, as sad as that might sound, I do believe that the US common law and constitutional system IS the lesser of many evils for attaining Justice. Look up Civil Law (as is in most European countries) and Common Law (US and UK)..
This is not really about International Law
It is though.
If anything, you should be making an argument for dismantling the Constitution, rather than arguing against a sub-system that is defined by the very document, you claim, that is being violated.
Hello, IN. Actually I believe we had such citizen gatherings as you describe. I assume you've heard of lynch mobs?
The justices are like rockstars. I wish I could be a justice one day; could you imagine all the chicks I'd get?
Fella, its full 12 years gone now! Mankind understands that by now you must have become a judge with chick-full of justice! Congratulations!
Babble on...
What're you saying??? Of COURSE they borrowed from English law. Where else the Indians? But the Founders had 2000 yrs. of western law & culture to draw on, & they created something new that hopefully would avoid the mistakes & injustices of the past. THAT'S what America's about.You're talking about bringing all the legal sins of the old world here! Answer this; would you want a judge here to use as precident a ruling made in a Soviet court that was based on telephone justice? Or SHARIA law?
Democracy was created by the Greeks. . . The Republic was created by the Romans. . . The "Social Contract" was created by the French. . . Popular Sovereignty was created by English Aristocrats to steal power from the King. . . The Founding Fathers of the United States did not make 'something new', they used old forms of control and created a softer form of consensual slavery called, 'consent of the governed', to dupe the ignorant Agrarian Yeomen into consenting to Federalist consolidated National Power--their New American Empire.
Cont.
If you want to continue with this straw man argument, that's your prerogative; however, I never said "that our system is so great or perfect," yet you continue to attack me on the basis of something fundamentally different than the original argument, which had to do with the dismantling of the Supreme Court in the United States.
The ludicrous number of fallacies laid out in your rantings is staggering, so I'm just gonna leave it at that and let you think through it again.