Видео

One of the finest movies to grace a screen, featuring Tracy and March, two of the finest actors in cinematic history. Doesn't get any better than "Inherit the Wind."

never trust a man who starts his own church

Murica, one step away from putting women in burkas....

Things are better now in 2024 than they have ever been. Other comments here can shut it

If you’re a liberal who won’t support progressive politics, this is the perfect speech

todavia alguien no creo un cancion completa con ai, que lastima

Darrin #1 was a great underrated actor wow

When this movie was made, 80 to 90% of all Americans were Christians. Now? 60% of the youth in their 20s are behaving as if they spiritually descended from Apes. Pause. And think was all of this worth it?

Great film. Tracy was actually almost sober

It’s amazing to me this religious ignorance is still here in 2024 people believing in mythical beings 🤪

its one of my mantras

Ironically, this black and white movie has more color than most movie that’s released today.

Will hurt looks so cool

Playlist add... The Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion for relief is predicated on the violation of plaintiff’s rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment in bringing about the January 26, 2024 decision. The violation of the U.S. Constitution is not to be taken lightly. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Historically, this guarantee of due process has been applied to deliberate decisions of government officials to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. E. g., Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (1878) (assessment of real estate); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) (stomach pumping); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971) (suspension of driver's license); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (paddling student); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate's property). No decision of this Court before Parratt supported the view that negligent conduct by a state official, even though causing injury, constitutes a deprivation under the Due Process Clause. This history reflects the traditional and common-sense notion that the Due Process Clause, like its forebear in the Magna Carta, see Corwin, The Doctrine of Due Process of Law Before the Civil War, 24 Harv. L. Rev. 366, 368 (1911), was "`intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government,'" Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 527 (1884) (quoting Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 244 (1819)). See also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974) ("The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government, Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 123 (1889)"); Parratt, supra, at 549 (POWELL, J., concurring in result). By requiring the government to follow appropriate procedures when its agents decide to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property," the Due Process Clause promotes fairness in such decisions. And by barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them, e. g., Rochin, supra, it serves to prevent governmental power from being "used for purposes of oppression," Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 277 (1856) (discussing Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment). Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331-32 (1986) The assertion without evidence violates due process because, “[w]here the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealously, a party’s right to show that it is untrue depends on the rights of confrontation and cross-examination. The Court has thus been zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken out not only in criminal cases, . . . but also in all types of cases where administrative . . . actions were under scrutiny” Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496-97 (1959). The 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause also intends to protect the plaintiff from the State’s arbitrary infliction which is a case of “selective prosecution” actionable under the federal Constitution. See Esmail v. Macrane, 53 F.3d 176, 178-79 (7th Cir. 1995). “This term has two meanings in law. The first is simply failing to prosecute all known lawbreakers, whether because of ineptitude or (more commonly) because of lack of adequate resources. The resulting pattern of nonenforcement may be random, or an effort may be made to get the most bang for the prosecutorial buck by concentrating on the most newsworthy lawbreakers, but in either case the result is that people who are equally guilty of crimes or other violations receive unequal treatment, with some being punished and others getting off scot-free. That form of selective prosecution, although it involves dramatically unequal legal treatment, has no standing in equal protection law. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 1530-31, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985); United States v. Smith, 953 F.2d 1060, 1063 (7th Cir. 1992). The second form of selective prosecution, and the only one that is actionable under the federal Constitution, is where the decision to prosecute is made either in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right, such as the right to free speech or to the free exercise of religion, or because of membership in a vulnerable group. E.g., Wayte v. United States, supra, 470 U.S. at 608, 105 S.Ct. at 1531.” Id., 53 F.3d 176, 178-79. The State’s decision to permit, impede, or block the plaintiff’s prosecution of a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim is innately a selective prosecution that occurs in retaliation for the plaintiff’s exercise of the right to prosecute a violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-83, 1985-1986, this right was granted by congress as authorized by U.S. Constitution Amend. 14 §5. Use of the 11th amendment as evidence to support the State’s offer of privilege runs counter to the 11th amendment’s deference to the State. In the federal court system of justice, the 11th amendment does not define the state’s sovereign immunity boundaries. Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina Ports A., 535 U.S. 743, 753 (2002) (“the Eleventh Amendment does not define the scope of the States' sovereign immunity; it is but one particular exemplification of that immunity. Cf. Blatchford, supra, at 779 ("[W]e have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms").”). The 11th creates an assumption based upon very generalized categories of suites. Such an assumption, however, does not end our inquiry as this Court has repeatedly held that the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the States extends beyond the literal text of the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Alden, supra (holding that sovereign immunity shields States from private suits in state courts pursuant to federal causes of action); Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) (applying state sovereign immunity to suits by Indian tribes); Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313 (1934) (applying state sovereign immunity to suits by foreign nations); Ex parte New York, 256 U.S. 490 (1921) (applying state sovereign immunity to admiralty proceedings); Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 (1900) (applying state sovereign immunity to suits by federal corporations); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) (applying state sovereign immunity to suits by a State's own citizens under federal-question jurisdiction). Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina Ports A., 535 U.S. 743, 754 (2002) The assumption is that generally a defense of sovereign immunity is permissible in the plaintiff’s suit, but there is not an assumption that any and every state officer or government employee is protected by sovereign immunity based only on the 11th. Conversely, due process does not necessarily require affording a party the opportunity to present every available defense before entry of judgment, and a state may limit available defenses in an action. Well... into the void.

❤

Darwin was a lying con man , snake oil salesman , perverted finch molester and the son of the devil .

My favorite quote from this film is when Drummond (Tracy) tells the Judge (Henry Morgan) "And soon your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating, we'll be marching backward...BACKWARD... through the glorious ages of that 16th century, when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind." That’s what Trump/MAGA is doing. Marching us backward.

I love that line. "Our house, or his church..." So powerful. He doesn't say "my" house, as so many men of the period might have. He asks her to build something together as a partner. It's both respectful and loving. She can have the dream of her father, or she can have her own dream. But she can't linger in both places. Sometimes in life you have to pick a side. Ignorance and selfish bliss, or knowledge and pain.... and truth. So relevant right now. Just do what they say and think like they think, put on the little red hat, and start saying "woke" this and "woke" that, and you'll find so many friends. But the moment you ask why you should treat someone different as evil, or ask why you have to see your fellow American as the devil... they'll kick you out so fast your head will spin.

This movie aged like fine wine.

my favorite words about individuality

Never compromise, not even if the face of your own starvation...You're all alone

What a great scene! Every word like poetry.

"You'll kill one of their fairytale notions and they'll bring down the wrath of God, Brady, and the state legislature every time." Tell me he hasn't described the current political climate with its Christofascists and magical thinking.

No big sound track to create emotion, just brilliant actors and an equally brilliant script to create a compelling drama that is still relevant today

I love this so much

I am an outsider… I’ll never fit in… this reminds me of the importance of that…

Many extraordinarily great scenes in this film, this is probably my favorite. It is the crux of the case, surrender or don't!

An amazing movie even today, and still relevant. The actress that portrays Rachel Brown is also absolutely beautiful.

Clarence Darrow lost the case in reality.

Cates, Drummond and their ilk had to deal with this loneliest feeling for years and years but they stuck to their beliefs. Brady got a taste of that feeling at the end and couldn't handle it for more than a few minutes.

2:57 to 3:00. I would add bigotry to that list. A truly unholy combination of traits if I have ever seen them.

Reminds me of when I joined the Marine Corps while growing up in the Bible Belt. Everyone I knew tried their best to stop me from leaving. It was almost a jihad from the way they acted. Insults, put downs, intimidation, the works. That was 40 years ago and I still think about it. I’m so happy I moved out right after high school.

I like what York tells his fiancee , that the religion practiced in that town isn't the Christianity practiced in other places ( paraphrased) . It's so poignant and true ! I guess I'd of been tied to a sour apple tree there too , not that I believe all of sciences theories are facts ,but I do believe science has truths to tell us !!!

Pretty beautiful

This speech is more relevant in 2021 then it was in 1960 when this film was made, or the play in 1955, or the Scopes Money Trial from 1925 which inspired it. Its been almost a hundred years and we are are more backward now than ever...and accelerating.

60 years later and those words still ring truth: _"You kill one of their Fairy Tale notions and they'll bring down the wrath of God, Brady and the State Legislature on you every time."_

The magnitude of him saying, "It's his church or our house, and you can't live in both" is staggering. To say that to a preacher's daughter took balls of steel. Actually not that--if you stand in your principles, it doesn't have to come down to balls of steel at all.

pack it in, and you'll never be lonely again.

She's awesome, fantastic performance

👌👌👌👌👌👌👏👏👏👏👏

That's deep

Damn, this was on my birthday. And this line still speaks to me.

The transition. Smooth. * Chef's kiss*

This movie was little more than a propaganda version of a trial that was intentionally politically set-up to play science (and the new ACLU) as heroic, and any and all objectors as fundamentalist bumpkins. The state never required the teaching of creationism and forbid the teaching of evolution because it felt that the children were too young for politicized inculcation either way. The text in question, "A Civic Biology", had almost nothing to do with Darwin's theory and everything to do with race and class based Social Darwinism coupled with the 1925 voguish mantra of eugenics. Of note was that William Jennings Bryan was grilled on the stand while Darrow and the other Scopes' lawyers got a free pass by refusing to have their five science "experts" cross examined. Before he could be cross-examined, Darrow (the noble Spencer Tracy character) pled guilty, threw in the towel.

50 years later a full 180 degree turn. Do not believe or else

I can remember my grandparents watching this.

He should dump her and marry Elizabeth Montgomery.

This channel has been dead for years

She sounds good singing with her looking stunningly lovely. How good of a singer is she?

Saaaammmm, did your mother have anything to do with this ? Sam, Endora?