Produced by Uncivil Law LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Become an UNCIVILIAN for 99 cents!: https://www.youtube.com/@uncivillaw/join
★☆★ CONTACT ME ★☆★ : https://linktr.ee/uncivillaw
🚨 Email uncivil law at ➜ [email protected]
🚨 Donate to uncivil law at ➜ https://tinyurl.com/4xufuebm
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
SwuM, Ben Belial – Reflect https://chll.to/672db1e8
source
⭐️🌟⭐️🤠⭐️🌟⭐️
Concern about a Convention of States is sensible, but it would take ratification by 3/4 of states to adopt any amendment. That's a significant safety rail.
Wait.
Breyer is still on SCOTUS????
Then who cares!!!!!!!
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but there are times no one wants to hear you use it.
If he couldnt do the job and had to step down cause of his inability to keep to the Constitution then he should just of stayed in his basement.
Breyer was always a great example of the dangers of when intelligence is combined with idealism.
IANAL but…
Bostock is arguably the best marriage of textualism and results-based jurisprudence in our lifetimes. Gorsuch isolated the rights that were believed to be guaranteed by the Constitution but had never been formally identified.
The right of bodily autonomy was viewed in the same light until those who insisted that it was an absolute right became the most aggressive proponents of mandatory medical interventions.
Dobbs soon followed, as the issue had not been “settled” by a Bostock-level ruling.
Of course, I could be wrong.
The left would totally overwhelm a convention with money. It's the biggest mistake conservatives could make.
These comments full of:
My
Ass
Got
Arrested
Again
Everyone knows the supreme court is very bad. Why do we need a book?
right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Somme people dont want kids so to make them have them is against their pursuit of happiness. GOP knows NOTHING about the law.
What about the Texas law the Supreme Court upheld?
Breyer reminds me of Shel Silvertein’s poem My Nose Garden.
I have rowses and rowses of noses and noses
And why they all growses I really can’t guess.
No lilies or roses, just cold-catching noses,
And when they all blowses, it’s really a mess.
They runs and they glowses, these sneezity noses,
They drips and they flowses, they blooms and they dies.
But you can’t bring no noses to fine flower showses
And really expect them to give you a prize.
But each mornin’ I goeses to water with hoses
These rowses of noses that I cannot sell,
These red sniffly noses that cause all my woeses,
Why even the crowses complain that they smell.
Why noses, not roses? Well, nobody knowses.
Why do you supposes they growses this thick?
But since there’s no roses come gather some noses —
I guarantee each one’s a good nose to pick.
I think he confuses a Democracy with our Constitutional Republic.
One of the most important concepts was the separation of church and state, which the GOP totally ignore.
You are so knowledgeable. Thank you
Rewatch crew
Arbitrariness in the evaluation of human development is imposed by the Constitution. You get your rights to vote with 18, when you are "adult". There we have the legal principle that allows us to define when you get your rights to live at any time we want.
Bonus points for parental rights, which are an refusal for right of property and persuit of happiness for children, which are named in the same sentence as the rights to live.
If 100% of people are unhappy with the status quo, but 50% want to change it to A and 50% want to change it to B. Then your process that need 66% to change to something fails the will of the people. Also there is that stupid clause that a treshhold of states have to ratify it, increasing the effetive amount of minority that can block a change even further. So you need more than a supermayourity.
"Words are the most objective" with the little caviat that words change their meaning over time and that legislators sometimes choose words in opposition of their general accepted meaning
You are excellent at breaking down principles into small, easy to understand components. Thank you for the clarity!
What still pisses me off about breyers approach, and those on the left, is their approach allows them to legislate from the bench. "this makes me feel good, so here is the new law". It makes them feel better. But judges should not legislate. I think there is a branch of government whose entire job is to legislate.
Kurt…you are a most amazing man! Your wealth of knowledge is absolutely incredible!
Thank you for being you!
❤❤❤
A SC Justice can be very subjective in their decision, but the problem is that they have to justify the decision and they can't just say "Because I said so" or they would be impeached. Or has that changed yet?
The only real danger i see in the court is a obviously ideological one, for one side or the other. I dont think the court is there yet, but i do see liberal people being concerned with how conservative the court is now adays.
The ideal court would in my opinion at least, not be apolitical, but vehemently anti-political. Also, as long as I am dreaming, might as well throw in that each justice has their own way of weighing and whats important to them. Textualists, originalists, humanists, realists, etc.
The only justice i cant and wont stand is Sotomayor. Breyer at least I understood in terms of decision. Sotomayor I regularly cant understand with the exception of obvious liberal bent.
Good, original video.
I think the whole issue with the intellectual "progressive" mindset is intellectual honesty. Unfortunately, what empowers this mindset is an intellectually deficient citizenry, found mostly in urban/suburban environments.
"The conflict between the left and right on the court is virtually impossible to bridge"
Aren't most descisions 9-0?
The Internet is the changing of all humans and artificial intelligences into potential members of the press.
Hatred of the left is what Kurt is all about.
“I don’t want this constitution therefore, no one wants it. So I will just ignore it.”
Narcissist, demagogue,prick.
I don't like J. Bryer's stare decisis argument. The liberals didn't practice stare decisis at all, because they already did the balancing test in the merits phase. Liberals abandoned so many traditional rules like marriage between a male and female which is arguably billions of years old.
Conservatives use stare decisis to slow the process of changing the law back to the original meaning, based on reliance v bad effects of the prior rulings.
Hi Kurt, saw you on Natalie’s stream
Repeal the 19th!
Maybe he shouldn't bring up the Kennedy's when he's a friend of the authoritarians
0:32: 👨⚖️ Retired Supreme Court Justice Breyer criticizes current Supreme Court in new book.
8:02: ⚖️ Interpreting the Constitution and laws through originalism and textualism, with a blurred distinction between them.
15:40: ⚖️ The importance of constitutional principles in limiting legislative changes and the reasoning behind it.
24:14: ⚖️ Importance of interpreting laws literally, focusing on text over intent or consequences.
31:55: ⚖️ Evolution of Constitutional amendments to expand rights to disenfranchised groups in US history.
39:46: 🤔 Complexity of decision-making process in law due to multiple factors and inconsistent tool application.
47:00: 🏛️ Evolution of the Supreme Court's approach to economics and property rights in the early 1900s.
54:41: ⚖️ Analysis of the tension between textualism and stardecisis when overturning old decisions.
1:01:39: 💬 Disagreement on the textualist originalist approach towards federal agency power interpretation.
1:08:34: ⚖️ Justice Breyer discusses interpreting statutes, rule of law, and societal harmony in legal decisions.
1:17:01: ⚖️ The importance of the rule of law in maintaining order and justice, as discussed by Albert Camus.
1:23:35: 🤔 Proposal for staggered presidential appointments, concerns about future American democracy, historical references
1:31:24: ⚖️ Legal implications of banning mailed prescriptions based on state laws and liability concerns.
Timestamps by Tammy AI
I don't get it. Interpreting constitution and laws shouldn't be such a mess. There is already a clear method to do it and anything else is insurrection. First you read the law, then you read the texts where the lawmaker (of framer) rationalizes why they wrote the law as it is, and that is the interpretation. I'm a bit loss how to write this in English but I hope you get my point.
It is very easy to try to find the meaning in written text. "Trust your feelings," Obi Wan said to Luke and same goes here. If you feel cognitive dissonance when you read and interpret the text, you are probably reading it wrong and you must go back and try to figure it out from different angle. This, of course, won't work with psychopaths; they don't feel cognitive dissonance.
Is it reasonable for the underlying law to change because meanings of the words and manner of writing has changed?
You could view the original constitution as written in a foreign language.
It needs to be interpreted as language was used at that time of writing because that is its meaning.
Also. Many laws has come to pass where people agree on the language but not what the language means.
It is messed up but it is how it works. Finding intent there would be tricky because some interpretations on what the text means are more highly voiced than others.
"The court is reaching decisions that lots of people don't like."
And that's new? Lots of people didn't like the decision that tomatoes are a vegetable, not a fruit. Like all the people who had to pay more for tomatoes as a result. And that was before the current crop of justices were born. (1893)
Regarding a state prohibiting a drug, you only need to look at CA for prohibiting all kinds of crap that is legal anywhere else.
If Califucknia can prohibit a water filter because the company wouldn't hand over all their intellectual property to "the regulators", then any state can prohibit a drug that is used to violate state law.
I like how people who disagree with the SCoTUS opinions think they know more than sitting justices. In the past, the courts have been both liberal and conservative leaning with the country being in danger of being destroyed. The current SCoTUS will not break America either.
His whole thing about when you chose to turn something over or not as a textualist is: do you fix the wrong back to what it should have been (in theory) or live with stari decisis. The liberal side of things is do we live with stari decisis or change it to be whatever we think would be best currently. I think that's a difference in kind. One is trying to fix things back to what the law was supposed to be the other is trying to "fix" it to what we want it to be.
Breyer opines the court sucks now that he has left. Must be terrible for Breyer to have a court using legal principles instead of his personal ideology of how the world should work.