Brilliantly explained and discussed. This Philosophy Professor seems to excel at explaining law cases better than some Law Professors. He has a gift of philosophical analysis and articulation. He must have read, written and spoken extensively to have developed such skills and mastery of philosophical analysis and articulation.

just cross across your video in time when i'm revising Dworkin, and i found it so much easier to understand now how his theory applies to hard case! thank you so much!

You explained +15 pages so well, thanks! also, the subtitles made it easier to understand

What a great explanation! Your teaching is very didactic and easy to understand. Keep it up!

1 minute through this video and i already subscribed!!! 😂🙌🏼 that's how good it is!! Thank you so much for making it all sound easy

Just finished watching your Philosophy of Law course. I am a PhD candidate in Political Theory but for some reason I have never taken a course in Philosophy of Law in either my BA or MA. Of course I have studied Dworkin as a political theorist, but never touched upon his core ideas as a jurist. I thought your course would be a good starting point to fill this void and I was not disappointed. Thanks a lot for making this available for free!

Thanks for the course. You have a true talent.

Your lectures are an intellectual treat, more people should watch them instead of mindless TV series. These are far better than any mystery show or detective story!

I have read a lot about this case because I have to teach Grade 12 Law and this is THE BEST EXPLANATION I have come across. Thank you so much!

I was shocked when i saw you just have 3k subs, you definitely deserve way more, all the best and tysm.

A great video! You’re an excellent professor. Keep up the good work!!

Great video explaning this particular case when the law crash with the principles of right and the interpretation of the law

Your lectures are phenomenal. Your style is masterful. I'm watching as much to learn about Hart and Dworkin as to improve my own lecturing technique. (But I do think you should reread parashat yitro, as malacha is definitely proscribed in the Ten commandments.)

Amazing explanation!!!

I enjoy your videos. I’m curious: did you develop this format for Covid? Either way, it’s a great presentation and excellent use of technology.

My cat watches your videos intently. Really likes your lectures. I like them too.

Ok. You are AWESOME! Just great!

please post more😭😭😭

Extremely thought provoking. Brilliantly explained. If you're interested in a humorous take on Riggs vs. Palmer, watch "Kind Hearts and Coronets," a British comedy, starring the great Alec Guinness in 7 roles, about a young chap who wants to become a duke, but, alas, there are seven persons in his and the duke's family who would "beat" him to the title, unless....Delightful.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📜 The case of Riggs v Palmer, from 1889, discusses the issue of whether a murderer should inherit money from the victim's will. 03:37 🏛️ The majority opinion, given by Justice Earl, presents the concept of rational interpretation or equitable construction, suggesting that principles should guide legal decisions, not just the strict letter of the law. 06:22 📜 Three examples support the idea of rational interpretation, showing that laws should be reasonably applied in specific cases. 16:54 ⚖️ The dissenting opinion argues that withholding inheritance from the murderer, Elmer Palmer, would be unjust and constitutes double punishment for the same crime. 24:11 💡 Earl counters the double punishment argument by asserting that Elmer was not an heir before his grandfather's death and made himself an heir by committing the murder to benefit from the crime. 24:40 💼 Withholding the inheritance from Elmer Palmer, the murderer, does not impose additional punishment but rather prevents him from benefiting from the crime. 25:24 💰 The act of withholding potential inheritance does not take away something that Elmer was entitled to, as he only becomes an heir by committing the murder. 26:05 ⚖️ The case of Riggs v Palmer exemplifies Dworkin's argument that underlying principles, like "no one should profit from their own wrong," are integral to the legal system and should guide judicial decisions. Made with HARPA AI

I have seen the Hart V Dworkin & Riggs V Palmer issues which covers majority of Dworkin's theory. Can you make videos on the remaining parts such as Chain Novel Analogy & Hercules.

great topic! certainly there are lot more examples of everyday ethics being tied to legal cases as exceptions to written laws. a whole other add on or expansion video lesson worth at least i would think. hint, hint!

Excellent

Muy buen vídeo, lástima que la traducción a español no ayudó mucho.:(

do more law videos!

You just saved my semester

The way my Remedies prof put this is that "the law" exists at the moment it is decided from the bench. This is distinct from regulations, statutes, treaties, constitutional provisions, case law, etc. Those are the parts the law is constructed from, but they're not "the law".

Thank you from Indonesia 😄

It's very strange to me to say that judges aren't just legislating extra laws that didn't previously exist and by invoking a notion of existing principles. legislators also invoke principles when making laws. By my view the point of electing government officials is to give the general populace a say in *which* principles get to be put in the forefront in the legal system. I can really see why Dworkin's theory on this is controversial. Do you have any recommendations for what I should look into for learning more about this?

Basically, I came close but here goes: People v. Palmer proclaims that generally in the ordinary course of legislative affairs a majority constitutes a quorum to do business provided by the significance.

Great lecture. So a president cannot pardon himself after all?

"Take that Justice Earl" OMG lol 13:30

More videos

Anyone who studied Philosophy of Law and saw Dworkin there to the side in the beginning thought "yep I know what's coming".

why does anyone ignore the fact that they had justice EARL and justice GREY on the same court?

I think the interpretation of "keep it holy" is to keep it a "holy day" = "holiday" = no work.

תודה רבה גרמי על שיעור מדהים. בעניין שבת נאמר לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם שפירושו הוא האיסור לעבוד כך שהשופט צודק לפחות לפי פרשניות מסוימות.

If you shouldn't profit from crime, then corporations should be fined enormous sums to make sure that the crimes they committed don't bring them profit, which is very much not the case.

Can anyone recommend something similar for UK law ?please 🙏

in Saga Iceland, in the sagas, there's something called "self-judgment," in which a powerful man is given, or seizes, the power to judge: I'll decide this dispute, or else, I'll let you decide, and, usually, the one given, or who takes, the power, acts fairly, unless the other combatant has acted in way that's seen, by everyone, as obnoxious, and, usually, has a history of behaving obnoxiously. Saga Iceland had no police force, but it did have a court system--but that also allowed violence as part of court proceedings, and not just trial by combat, which was an option, too--so that a party that won a judgment had to enforce it himself, or with the help of family, allies and friends.

This all sounds like a good argument that we shouldn't have "a legal system", but instead come up with something that doesn't require multiple layers of outright lies.

Yasher koach on that fact check 🔥

❤❤❤❤

what was the outcome of the case? who won and did anyone get the money?

I would have used the word "Justice " here.

NEVER trust someone named Elmer!

13:15 i know damn well this nigga did not pull out the HEBREW. this man is a GOAT

Nothing radical about it. Rational interpretation does gives human judges way too much power.

Let him inherit the money.

You checked the 10 commandments? Which ones? There are more than one ten commandments.

Ah yes, the slayer rule. Fun times, had by no one.

Thanks for the great lectures. I’m pretty sure the Ten Commandments says you shouldn’t work on the sabbath. You’re also not supposed to work any servants or even your animals. Once again, thanks for your good work bringing beginners’ philosophy to the masses.

Where is the purposive approach, or purposivism, relevant in terms of this case, and in terms of rational interpretation? Is there any connection, Professor Kaplan?