For folks enjoying this series, I highly recommend the Radiolab podcast “More Perfect” that takes a look at SCOTUS with some amazing stories and reporting.
Agree. It's a wonderful podcast, and I learned quite a lot. The podcast "First Mondays" covers the court on a week-by-week basis if you want to dive into the minutiae, and it's also a good podcast.
Hank these videos are fantastic. Thank you so much for promoting the on Hankschannel, I might never have seen them otherwise and I’m very very glad that I have!!
This mini series is extremly interesting and i think it is valuable to know about all the arbitrary deciosions and biases that might go into important decisions that effect every citizen. I would love to see a crash course about law or even specifically US law.
I would argue that there are some issues with the scale as given around 5:00. It seems to equate the mainstream jurisprudence of "stare decisis" with the outlying originalism. The video says that theoretically judicial restraint is the territory of deciding based both on precedent and the original language of the constitution. But these are two competing judicial philosophies, and I would argue that the originalist position is the far more activist one. This is especially true when we look at Gorsuch's views on Chevron Deference - he clearly thinks that the judicial bench should be the branch setting policy, not the executive or legislative. His (and Scalia's) "originalist" views call for an activist judiciary which decides based on... well, nothing but their own flights of imagination what the law should be, rather than taking into account stare decisis.
I'm commenting just to tip my hat, because I'm not sure if I could add anything substantive to your comment. You've nailed the notion that judicial activism and a "constitutionalist" philosophy are not implicitly mutually exclusive.
This viewpoint, while correct, is kind of counter to this video, which is just trying to paint the broadest strokes imaginable for people who are completely ignorant about the US judicial system. Know your audience.
Stare decisis isn't a good principle. Just because a decision has been issued in the past means that it is correct. Some of the greatest judges I would argue issues decisions that were the opposite of and in many cases overulled previous decisions. Like Brown v the Board of education, probably the most famous example. Some Not able jurists who didn't have much care for the principle of stare decisis were greats such as Louis Brandies, or William O Douglass.
When I say religion, I mean the Christian religion. And by the Christian religion, I mean the Episcopal church. And by the Episcopal church, I mean the high church. That's neutral, right? /s
MONITOR YOUR US FED COURT CIVIL CASES MOST ARE DISMISSED BY CORRUPT US FED JUDGES If THERE IS VALID CURRENT LAW IT MUST PER THE CONSTITUTION GO TO JURY TRIAL there is no law for the average citizen, teach your kids to monitor and record make it a school project
It was although the world slavery isn't directly used it's in there several times. the first when it says other persons count for 3/5ths for representation purposes those are slaves being counted. The second time is In article 1 as well "person held to service or labor in one state". The constitution also again mentioned slavery in article 1 by preventing Congress from abolishing it before 1808 but allowing a tax to be imposed.
Just as the All of the violence in the mass problem and people are still going around I am going to stop people suffering are One person for now as a Mercy of god and there evilness in people
"All of this is important" because they are supposed to be unbiased? NO! What you are looking for there is DISTRIBUTED bias, not a lack of bias. If they are unbiased, it doesn't matter at all what gender they are, or the color of their skin. If they are supposed to be unbiased, NONE of that is important.
That was literally the point he made though? 2:47 Literally the next sentence was "But federal judges also happen to be humans. And unbiased is something that humans rarely are." The court system as a whole is supposed to be unbiased, and judges may do their best to act in unbiased ways, but being perfectly unbiased is basically impossible for a human being because a person always sees from their perspective. Therefore, distributing the bias is a way to bring multiple perspectives together so that particular biases aren't overrepresented and overpowering.
These videos are TOO SHORT I NEED MOAR
I think you guys need to advertise this a bit more. It's a really good series but you're only getting like 1-2k views
AGREE
Just wait five years.
"Most notorious"... Loving the subtle puns
I'm really enjoying these videos; they are quite informative on the branch of government I know least about.
For folks enjoying this series, I highly recommend the Radiolab podcast “More Perfect” that takes a look at SCOTUS with some amazing stories and reporting.
Agree. It's a wonderful podcast, and I learned quite a lot. The podcast "First Mondays" covers the court on a week-by-week basis if you want to dive into the minutiae, and it's also a good podcast.
There will be a day when I see my name in these credits and don't immediately perk up, but today is not that day.
I love looking at life complexly. Keep up the amazing work.
Hank these videos are fantastic. Thank you so much for promoting the on Hankschannel, I might never have seen them otherwise and I’m very very glad that I have!!
Julia Fraser +
This mini series is extremly interesting and i think it is valuable to know about all the arbitrary deciosions and biases that might go into important decisions that effect every citizen. I would love to see a crash course about law or even specifically US law.
I would argue that there are some issues with the scale as given around 5:00. It seems to equate the mainstream jurisprudence of "stare decisis" with the outlying originalism. The video says that theoretically judicial restraint is the territory of deciding based both on precedent and the original language of the constitution. But these are two competing judicial philosophies, and I would argue that the originalist position is the far more activist one. This is especially true when we look at Gorsuch's views on Chevron Deference - he clearly thinks that the judicial bench should be the branch setting policy, not the executive or legislative. His (and Scalia's) "originalist" views call for an activist judiciary which decides based on... well, nothing but their own flights of imagination what the law should be, rather than taking into account stare decisis.
I'm commenting just to tip my hat, because I'm not sure if I could add anything substantive to your comment. You've nailed the notion that judicial activism and a "constitutionalist" philosophy are not implicitly mutually exclusive.
+
This viewpoint, while correct, is kind of counter to this video, which is just trying to paint the broadest strokes imaginable for people who are completely ignorant about the US judicial system.
Know your audience.
Stare decisis isn't a good principle. Just because a decision has been issued in the past means that it is correct. Some of the greatest judges I would argue issues decisions that were the opposite of and in many cases overulled previous decisions. Like Brown v the Board of education, probably the most famous example. Some Not able jurists who didn't have much care for the principle of stare decisis were greats such as Louis Brandies, or William O Douglass.
thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you THANK YO U
If some people are going around saying some is suffering and I am and other people are going to there suffering what will that means to people
When I say religion, I mean the Christian religion. And by the Christian religion, I mean the Episcopal church. And by the Episcopal church, I mean the high church.
That's neutral, right?
/s
MONITOR YOUR US FED COURT CIVIL CASES MOST ARE DISMISSED BY CORRUPT US FED JUDGES If THERE IS VALID CURRENT LAW IT MUST PER THE CONSTITUTION GO TO JURY TRIAL there is no law for the average citizen, teach your kids to monitor and record make it a school project
5:00 He sort of implies that slavery was written in the constitution. It was not
It was although the world slavery isn't directly used it's in there several times. the first when it says other persons count for 3/5ths for representation purposes those are slaves being counted. The second time is In article 1 as well "person held to service or labor in one state". The constitution also again mentioned slavery in article 1 by preventing Congress from abolishing it before 1808 but allowing a tax to be imposed.
Just as the All of the violence in the mass problem and people are still going around I am going to stop people suffering are One person for now as a Mercy of god and there evilness in people
"All of this is important" because they are supposed to be unbiased?
NO! What you are looking for there is DISTRIBUTED bias, not a lack of bias.
If they are unbiased, it doesn't matter at all what gender they are, or the color of their skin.
If they are supposed to be unbiased, NONE of that is important.
That was literally the point he made though? 2:47 Literally the next sentence was "But federal judges also happen to be humans. And unbiased is something that humans rarely are."
The court system as a whole is supposed to be unbiased, and judges may do their best to act in unbiased ways, but being perfectly unbiased is basically impossible for a human being because a person always sees from their perspective. Therefore, distributing the bias is a way to bring multiple perspectives together so that particular biases aren't overrepresented and overpowering.