Ames Moot Court Competition 2011
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 ноя 2017
- The case United States v. Garfield was argued on November 17, 2011, at the Ames Moot Court competition. The presiding judges were Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court; Hon. Frank Easterbrook, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for The Seventh Circuit; Hon. Peter Rubin '88, Massachusetts Court of Appeals.
The Ames Competition, held in the historic Ames Courtroom of Harvard Law School, is one of the most prestigious competitions for appellate brief writing and advocacy in the country. The students participating in the Final Round started the competition in fall of their 2L year. Two teams progressed to the Final Round through their strong research abilities and excellent written and oral advocacy.
To view the history of the Ames Moot Court Competition, including decades of videos and info on past competitions, go to : hls.harvard.edu/ames-moot-court/
![Roddy Ricch - 911 [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5N3lAfydeWs/mqdefault.jpg)
Damn I would have an anxiety attack if I get roasted by the judges in front of a crowd like that. These students are so confident!
She laughs yet comes back with legitimate points. These guys are different breed.
These are so much fun to watch! Love seeing how people respond when on the hot seat. Bravo!
It’s amazing because Harvard alumni Elizabeth Prelogar is now the U.S. Solicitor General who arranged this.
Speaker: ...please hold your applause...
Audience: *claps*
Dexter Kim I was thinking the same thing hahaha
I like how the judges are always able to discuss the law in lay terminology but the oralists always use complex legal jargon
Because they're the ones that compete so they need to showcase their knowledge, research and all the preparation they made for an entire year. Also using jargon would show much more confident and intimidate the other team.
Simplicity comes with experience and familiarity; that’s why
I actually enjoy watching these
Girl behind the first petitioner is so nervous that you can see her breathing quite strongly. She is part of her team thus, why she is nervous
Or the fact that she is in front of two legendary judges. Judge Easterbrook on the right is on par with Scalia, in fact they taught together, and Scalia had said Easterbrook could easily take his place! Easterbrook is also an absolute brutal questioner.
Simply brilliant!
There’s so much learning even in the questions the judges pose! A great way to trigger thinking and further research/study. And these “students” know their s@*t inside out! Impressive. I’m sure they are all successful lawyers now
Terima kasih Papa PETER RUBIN SUDAH BERAKHIR BAHAGIA, AKU HILANG SELAMANYA AMIN.
I would have fallen over at Judge Easterbrook's first question lol. He's a legendary Judge that will right a borderline savage opinion with the verbosity of a genius and end it with "AFFIRMED WITH SANCTIONS" lol. But seriously, an amazing Judge, throws hardball but gets opinions right.
"Judge Easterbrook is an asshole, but he's a *brilliant* asshole."
--My mom, a 7th circuit law clerk.
Judge Easterbrook is brilliant and his opinions cut to the chase, are known for their brevity, and written clearly for both lawyers and lay audience to understand. He writes them himself, like Judge Posner did, which is why they are not boring. That said, he stubbornly practices judicial restraint - or judicial abdication - and Constitutional cases aren't exactly his strong suit. He is a real stickler on jurisdictional issues. As for oral arguments, he is brutal towards attorneys arguing before him and it's pretty obvious how he's going to rule based on his questions and comments during oral argument- though you can say that about most judges.
One of the Justices looks and sounds like Dumbledore 🤣
Of all the moot courts I’ve seen on this channel, this appeared to be one of the toughest benches. Unless someone can explain if the legal issues at hand are very tricky?
Wouldn't say it's a particularly more nuanced issue. If anything, it's probably the opposite, where there's a lot of caselaw and it's easier to come up with hypotheticals, combined with just a generally more aggressive bench.
One of the best.
i seriously have absolutely no clue as to what theyre talking about! categorically, medal is the category of the medals implications of the intent of the catch 22 of the knowing line's actor got that medal from world war 2's statute,.......HUH?!?!?
Her anxiety is overtaking her logic
I would like to know what the soundtrack is all about. That little violin riff is way cool, woke me right up this morning and I do need to get to court all bright eyed...
The violin riff was a default sound from the old apple music mixing program thingy. It has since been used and popularized in the song "believe me" by fort minor
It was originally a default sound in one of apples music mixing program thing. It has since been used and popularized in the song "believe me" by fort minor.
Someone needs to make a finished classical music piece out of that! It’s very catchy.
@@lowvariance so is it public domain?
Kebaikan ada dan Kejahatan ada: Inilah arti hidup kita sebab ini faktanya dan kenyataannya, aku capek soalnya aku selalu memenangkan kebaikan. Aku gak tahu Tuhannya siapa, tapi Tuhan Yesus yang tahu Tuhannya siapa.
Shes talking about opinion vs evidence
is this a preponderance or evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?
when a case is closed "with predjudice" you should trust that judge. Without material EVIDENCE, then keep your OPINIONS. to yourself
24:26 is he really just blowing bubbles in the back with gum
Yes!
The beard justice gives confusing questions that can make you doubt your research hahaha
I want to get admission in Harvard Law school. What is the way?
Sandip Sethi If your school has some type of law club join it ,get good grades, pass the tests,get recommendation letters from about 3 teachers,community service,and a good letter on why you want to get in
Sandip Sethi you need to be extremely smart. It also helps if you’re a minority, that helps you get in over more qualified whites and Asians.
Very good grades, top 10% of your class in college and work experience or other extra-curricular activities are basically crucial to get into any Ivy league law school. There's a lot of luck involved too, I'm not going to deny that.
Are you a US citizen ? If not then its basically useless to do a JD from Harvard as most US states have some sort of limitation on Non citizens practicing law. And you degree is not worth anything in India as well.
I’d like to play center for the NY Yankees. What is the way?
She knows what she is trying to say, but she is saying it too fast
nobody watches these completely
i thought Caroline Anderson had the best oratory imo
I love this FIELD OF tender LOVE FOR OUR COUNTRY TOGETHER. This is why DRIED ball's are happy THAT I CAN DO this SHIT FOR a LONG TIME IN MY OWN LIFE.
The young woman is very knowledgeable in law probably even smarter than these Supreme Court justices if only they would stop interrupting her. 🙄
They keep interrupting because that's the competition setting.....
That’s what happens during oral arguments in the Supreme Court. After the introduction, justices are free to ask often difficult questions and interrupt when they see a flaw in their argument (i.e. not relevant to the question, argument not clear).
That's how oral arguments work.
sad my tax money goes towards this garbage
what’s wrong with you…pathetic individual