A conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2022
- In his first Harvard event since retiring from the Supreme Court in June, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer spoke to incoming Harvard Law students about his time on the Court, the job that most shaped his career as a jurist, and why his questions at oral argument were so famously idiosyncratic.
Read more: news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...
I find Justice Stephen Breyer to be such a personable person. He just comes across as a really good natured and warm person, aside from being this giant of a legal scholar. He's a living example of a life well lived. I would love the privilege to meet him one day.
You can tell Breyer has never had to argue before a Court in his life. He rambles, talks in circles, goes off on tangents, and never articulates his scatter-brained thoughts clearly like the other justices do, smart as he may be.
I love that, every time the door open everyone's head turns.
We're 200 k plus on UA-cam now 👏🏻
Congratulations HLS
HLS deserves a lot
around 30 min i heard someone is crying did you hear it
Audio is already released LIVE during oral arguments, so adding cameras would not really provide much transparency to what there already is.
Seems like this video was taken down and then re-uploaded. Any idea what happened? Any edits or anything?
Yeah they cut out a question they didn't find suitable
@@rez3762 Does thinking that help you sleep at night?
@@AtomicMushroomz I literally watched it before they reuploaded it lol it was a dumb personal question
@@rez3762 what question?
@Rez can you elaborate?
Good I thought so umm in the infraney before deer hunting rifle ok nothing above what you think?
It's a shame that the closed captioning on this is so poor. Lots of people with lesser commands of English depend on the written text, and it's a terrible inaccurate mess.
It used to be that you could correct it, but Google took that away. I would certainly contribute.
In Justice Breyer We Trust
Love Harvard ❤️
I think the crisis of trust in law enforcement is not only happening in the USA, but also in Indonesia.
My opinion, that law enforcement is very much in the spotlight in doing work that is sometimes not in line with the sense of justice in society.
Read the constitutions... really understand them . Then realize that corruption and over reach exist & are not sufficiently contended . Particularly concerning lower level governing bodies as well as civil administrative authority. They're over reach (in my opinion) looks to supercede the rights of all subject to enforcements . Real abuse of power . The reasons vary . Stare decicis , isn't meant to be optional . It is what is meant to protect us all from ex-post facto rule of law . If you think that police , civil administration's , lower courts , state & -or- federal courts , legislators enforcement in disagreement with S.C.O.T.U.S. is somehow OK or alright ... consider just how much it takes to gain an audience with S.C.O.T.U.S , the cost , time . Also just how small a chance you've to be heard given their case load , regardless what's spent . Maybe you've got your appeals figured out in pro-se fashion (not easy to do for full fledged , prestigious law firms) regardless how well your presented , how much of your means you invest , how much you believe in your arguments to be presented ... They may simply not have time for you & in that case the last ruling holds ... for that you could wind up political prisoner or subject to punishment ex-post facto . It's a fact that (seemingly) the lower courts play on in order to maybe appease public outcry (look good to voters) or for personal reason , or whichever conduit corruption may find . The only body with the authority to overturn a decision of the Supreme Court is congress , by a vote of no less than 3/5th's ! All others who do so are behaving as a nobility ... prohibited 🚫 by article 1 sections 9&10 of the U.S. constitution . Courts are body's of their respective government . A ruling , a law , decision , enforcement made without respect to the constitutions is in fact no law ... can be an act of nobility (prohibited) or other corruption . The answer is in that all important document . It's 1 page , just happens to be the most important page ever written !
Justice Breyer,
Could the Court look to Content-Based Restrictions: “Low” Value Speech for Data Privacy concerns into the future?
Thank you.
Sincerely & Respectfully,
R.W.N II
P.S.~ “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”
This isn't a live Q&A sir
Great legal mind but drags on and goes in circles - waste a lot of time end up being nothing at the end
Hดิฉันวันที5/2/1962นะคะแชื่อดาวมณี/โจนส์หรือคำเซ่งนะคะฟีด
How Does Governor Newsom Get His Campaign Cash?
113 views Sep 20, 2022
Huh? Right thread?
Well your retired so enjoy it, regardless of radio in the fourth grade or now. The current President gets up with a straight face and says I propose an assault weapons ban inside the country domestic do you know how stupid that sounds like really you have to actually do that?
Hwy my self stop your face my page? Because to rich you my daughter...
🤮
cry
*Harvard, my apologies for the comment but you are very aware of my pointless relationship to Anderson Cooper. I am to attend Columbia Law School, however my relationship with Anderson has completely changed.*
*I have followed.... indicating I have known the entire time concerning Harvard Law School and the support. I am simply reconnecting to what has been understood the entire time since my meeting with Harvard and Columbia with President Bollinger. Thank you.*
Why is the United States constitution a wall of text? That's not an optimal format. It should leverage tables (rows and columns). How has everyone at Harvard law school managed to overlook something so obvious? These people have spent hundreds of years staring at a wall of text and it never occurred for any of them to make a template and improve it. The bill of rights should be visualized as a table. The structure of government should be visualized as a graph. Incompetence and complacency. Don't let these elitists fool you into thinking they know what they're doing. They're operating out of their league and have no idea of it.
jesus
@@randomspiel Speaking of Jesus, the Bible is also a wall of text. That's how we can quickly conclude it didn't come from god or any other intelligent being. It came from someone who didn't know how to organize information efficiently.
True. The fact that the framers didn’t structure the Constitution as a SQL database is truly inexplicable.
@@-dash I'm not talking about the original authors. I'm talking about all the people that have made billions of dollars claiming to be the greatest lawmakers in the world. I'm talking about the people who haven't raised the bar in the last 200 years.
@@jbreija lol I thought you were trolling. The Constitution isn’t a “wall of text”. It’s organized into Articles (most of which have sections) as well as what’re called Amendments.
I still think you’re trolling.
Stephen, I vomit Having beingforced to have an opinion of YouT.