The Most Important Supreme Court Cases of 2019 (Real Law Review) // LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 427,694
Күн бұрын⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
The census question, profane trademarks, free speech. 2019 has been a big term for the Supreme Court. Get my favorite suits -- INDOCHINO -- for 50% off + free shipping legaleagle.link/indochino
This summer marks the end of Justice Kavanaugh’s first term. Is Robert’s now the Court’s centrist? Big changes and interesting decisions this term!
(Thanks to Indochino for sponsoring this video)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
@LegalEagle 5 жыл бұрын
Why Indochino Suits? ($359 Premium Suits + free shipping) [bit.ly/2IeeB8W]: Off-the-rack suits NEVER fit right. Indochino makes fully custom suits that fit perfectly using any material I want, with all of the options I want. And they cost 1/3rd of what normal suits costs. I’ve purchased them with my own money for years, so I’m thrilled they are now a sponsor.
@DrArthurCGarp 5 жыл бұрын
Can I buy a white suit from Indochino?
@Uncle_Buzz 5 жыл бұрын
...LINK BROKEN...
@mcgillicuddy74 5 жыл бұрын
You said any materiel you want right? Titanium it is!
@mickeymouse1202 5 жыл бұрын
@@Uncle_Buzz Open the link without the bracket at the end.
@Uncle_Buzz 5 жыл бұрын
@@mickeymouse1202 I did that...I also reposted the corrected link above.
@ryanblakeslee1406 5 жыл бұрын
Looks like the monetization on this video is going to be 'fuct'
@s.h.1810 5 жыл бұрын
Ryan Blakeslee I knew I wasn’t the only one that noticed the lack of ads.
@JonpaulGee 5 жыл бұрын
Fuct is a blessing in disguise. It's a funny way to say the f word much like fudge. I feel like itll be used a lot more often now that the word is in the open
@limitbreak321 5 жыл бұрын
I believe the fact that Indochino is the sponsor for this episode, there is no need for ads
@albertko1 5 жыл бұрын
Seems like the YT algorithm not smart enough to know what's 'fuct'
@seneca983 5 жыл бұрын
He's clearly not FCUKing around!
@iammrbeat 5 жыл бұрын
I can't wait to covered the FUCT case for my Supreme Court Briefs series.
@b.213 3 жыл бұрын
Ooooooohhhhh you said a bad woooord. I’m telling....
@mr.blonde8808 3 жыл бұрын
nice to see you here
@theperfectmix2 3 жыл бұрын
@@b.213 Unfortunately you can’t tell on the teacher to the teacher./s
@sandhanitizer15 2 жыл бұрын
Better study, you don't want to be FUCT once test time comes...
@Petrico94 5 жыл бұрын
"I'm Commander Shepard and Indochino is my favorite store on the Citadel"
@Original_Tenshi_Chan 5 жыл бұрын
LIES! You say that about every store on the Citadel, Shepard! You'd probably say the same thing about the Consort too, if she had a holo-ad. For shame! =p
@QuixisoftheVixens 4 жыл бұрын
Ahhhhahahaahahahahaha
@sagesheahan6732 4 жыл бұрын
NICE!!! 😂😂😂
@jasonleslie203 4 жыл бұрын
Lol
@jasonleslie203 4 жыл бұрын
@@Original_Tenshi_Chan yea its great lol.
@RetroAlchemy 5 жыл бұрын
The automatic closed captioning did well with most nouns and legal terms, but it kept tripping up on a certain trademarked word...
@icemule 4 жыл бұрын
@David Roberts He was joking!
@user-ql9cc9hg4e 4 жыл бұрын
@David Roberts ur mom
@333angeleyes 5 жыл бұрын
LegalEagle I hope you realize that you are the "Daily Show & Last Week Tonight" of KZfaq!... You take things that my generation doesn't know about or think that we even would care about and make it fun to learn about, while most importantly helping us understand WHY we should care about it... Thanks for all you do
@MCHkid13 5 жыл бұрын
The first opportunity you get to "swear" and you take full advantage of it. xD
@nolanboles8492 4 жыл бұрын
I think that's why he mentioned it in the first place.
@PhantomBanker 5 жыл бұрын
If the “political alignment” of SCOTUS justices is the “topic of another video,” are there any plans for that video?
@EddyA1337 5 жыл бұрын
I second this motion.
@eastvandb 5 жыл бұрын
So Say We All!
@fatesrequiem 5 жыл бұрын
Also co-signed, I would like to hear this discussion.
@tannerwilson4843 5 жыл бұрын
This would be great.
@-8_8- 5 жыл бұрын
As a matter of fact a video about how hard it is to be a judge and the difference between their decision-making in the rest of ours would be enlightening.
@bigdsson 4 жыл бұрын
Great channel, I just found it. I find it interesting that everyone talks about "rights" but few people speak about "responsibilities". Just because I have the legal "right" to say or do something doesn't mean it is a responsible or beneficial thing for myself or society.
@jasonbarnard5785 5 жыл бұрын
I would be interested in that video regarding political standing (liberal vs conservative) and how it contributes to siding in the supreme court.
@EebstertheGreat 5 жыл бұрын
Standing is probably too broad an issue to make a single video about. It is an issue that comes up all the time. At least narrowing it to a particular category like environmental cases (where standing is an especially thorny issue) might make for a better video.
@ryansheehan7053 5 жыл бұрын
Republican or Democrat, the one thing we can all agree on in DC is the need to fire Dan Snyder.
@jaredhouseholder1979 5 жыл бұрын
Likewise, Marvel or DC fans, the one thing we can all agree on in the DC universe is the need to fire Zack Snyder
@LuciferBalor 5 жыл бұрын
#banallsnyders
@EddyA1337 5 жыл бұрын
@@jaredhouseholder1979 XD
@masterchaoss 5 жыл бұрын
@@zacharyp3359 Dan Snyder (the owner of the Redskins) is considered one of worst owners in the NFL and is seen as the reason his team keeps losing by consistently getting in the way.
@tenchimuyo69 4 жыл бұрын
I feel upset that I cannot hear the name "Snyder" without instinctively letting a "der" sound.
@cabdriver123456 5 жыл бұрын
Can you react to the People vs OJ Simpson: American crime story? I would love to you to be able to react to the entire mini-series cause it's a spot on representation on one of the biggest and most covered trials ever, so that you could give us your thoughts on how the defence won, or the prosecution lost, this essentially slam dunk case.
@BGTom 5 жыл бұрын
That show leaves out the EDTA evidence that proved police planted evidence. This was the sole factor leading to acquital. Watch the raw trial footage, the Prosecution had no case.
@ariaalexandria3324 5 жыл бұрын
@@BGTom The prosecution had a strong case. Unfortunately, the jurors' lives were being destroyed due to sequestration. Months on en of no private time with families, without being able to work to support their households, where everything they saw and did was monitored and cleared. They were more carefully controlled than prison inmates. A guilty verdict would have meant months more of living in a psychologically torturous hell while their lives kept burning. Between finding a murdered guilty and staying weeks or months longer while my family is suffering, or letting the asshole walk free so I can get back to my child and husband, I'd vote "not guilty" just to preserve what's left of my own life as well. OJ's actions and statements since that trial have further indicated guilt. He's trash, and so are the people who support him and the destructive circus his defense team put on.
@cabdriver123456 5 жыл бұрын
@@BGTom the prosecution and Ito screwed up the case. They were heaps of evidence, there is a site online called 101 pieces of evidence that proves OJ did it, but the defense were clever to pull the race card and they were fortunate that that racist Nazi lover Fuhrman was the first on the scene of the crime. The prosecution still failed to capitalize on that mountain of evidence and Ito allowed the defense too much freedom. The downtown jury with a former Black panther didn't help as well.
@plaidypus820 5 жыл бұрын
Buzzfeed Unsolved also mentions the alternate suspects. An interesting topic if he were to do a series.
@BGTom 5 жыл бұрын
@@ariaalexandria3324 The Defense proved the police planted evidence and the Forensic Evidence actually exonerates Simpson. Had this occurred in the UK, there never would have been a trial. As it is, when cops arrived, the blood was wet and sticky, this means Nicole and Ron were killed around Midnight which clears Simpson. EDTA was found in the blood samples and that alone proved cops planted evidence. In addition Fuhrman, Vannatter , and Lange were caught in lie after lie on the stand and their credibility was shot. Fung was absolutely destroyed on the stand. And the defense got the top Forensic Detective, Dr. Lee, to testify on their behalf. The Prosecutor had no case and never should have gone to trial. Don't believe me, watch the raw trial footage. Read "Legacy of Deception," by Stephen Singular and "American Tragedy" by Lawrence Shiller. The OJ Simpson Case was won before the First Opening Arguments.
@Vohlfied 5 жыл бұрын
"Video footage not found" You're so fuctin' clever. I recently shared your channel with some friends who were impressed with the quality of your videos. Keep up the great work!
@michaelbarale9973 5 жыл бұрын
Objection: @5:20 - Batson v. Kentucky* (Flowers v. Mississippi), top-class review nonetheless!
@economath8164 4 жыл бұрын
Came down into the comments to say this.
@slickm7 4 жыл бұрын
@@economath8164 same 😔
@TheSlants 5 жыл бұрын
Hi, Simon from The Slants here. Just a quick correction: At 3:48, you identify me as the lead singer of the band but I'm not (never have and definitely never will be). I'm the bassist and the founder as any quick search will show :)
@tarkus1056 4 жыл бұрын
Now you are officially the singer. Get the mic and learn the lyrics.
@TheSlants 4 жыл бұрын
@@tarkus1056 Oh, no one would want that
@jayp224 5 жыл бұрын
So question about the FUCT ruling. Could this apply broadly to certain FCC rules for radio and television?
@michaelwinter742 5 жыл бұрын
+
@Bodyknock 5 жыл бұрын
Maybe, but maybe not? The FCC enjoys an exception specifically for regulating speech over airwave broadcast channels based in the fact that there is a relatively limited amount of airwave spectrum that many parties want to use simultaneously. This allowed the courts to ok carving out a first amendment exception to regulate airwave broadcasts based on their value to the public and scarcity compared to demand. That same exception doesn’t exist for any other type of media including print, cable and internet streaming. None of those media pipelines have strict bandwidth limits similar in scale to the airwaves for radio and television so the FCC does not the same ability to regulate speech on them. That’s why for example you can hear cursing on cable but not on the airwaves and why the “equal time doctrine” only ever applied to airwaves and not cable or print. With trademarks there is no “bandwidth” or scarcity issue so the government has more difficulty defending regulating speech for trademarks. The scarcity defense though might still be upheld in court for the airwaves, so this trademark decision might not overturn obscene language restrictions there (but who knows?)
@natsune09 5 жыл бұрын
That is a question addressed by Supreme Court cases like the one involving George Carlin (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation) which one of the reasons that TV and radio can have strict controls over speech on those types of media is that children have access to them, and you don't know what is going to come on as you change the station.
@collguyjoe99 5 жыл бұрын
For open air broadcasts, Like ABC, NBC etc possibly - For Pay TV/Cable etc no
@Bodyknock 5 жыл бұрын
@@natsune09 This ruling might undercut FCC v Pacifica Foundation a bit though if a similar case arguing that the FCC engages in viewpoint discrimination when it decides whether something is "indecent" or not. That and the additional technology of the V-chip which was not available to parents at the time of the Pacifica ruling in the 70s could be enough to have the court mitigate that decision (maybe?)
@AllYouWantAndMore 5 жыл бұрын
Oh, Law stuff that I care about a lot! This is Awesome! Can we do more of this with like a weekly update on the most important cases? Your takes are awesome!
@theMoporter 5 жыл бұрын
You may want to try Leonard French for that.
@tenkaichi412 5 жыл бұрын
Damn, thats some useful information I knew nothing about. Thanks for the info man!
@krinniv7898 5 жыл бұрын
This is such a great and informative video. Please do more Supreme Court cases! These are fascinating. Maybe famous SC cases?
@michaelj3339 5 жыл бұрын
I love all these Real Law series for their informativeness and entertaining content! Thank you so much, I'd otherwise be completely unaware of any of these case studies!
@civrevnoob117 5 жыл бұрын
Thank you for making this video! I loved it and hope you keep them up for the foreseeable SCOTUS terms!
@richieangel8150 5 жыл бұрын
Great unbiased review. I always appreciate that objective analysis.
@sloane3785 5 жыл бұрын
He will love being able to say fuct
@loranddeka 4 жыл бұрын
And we're all gonna wonder if he kisses his mother with that mouth.
@sonablom 5 жыл бұрын
Was so excited to see this video. Have had an unusually hard time following these this year
@ShadoSpartan44 3 жыл бұрын
That is an awesome video, i can't wait to see more of these each year
@matthewblonder8512 5 жыл бұрын
I was in the Supreme Court for the gerrymandering case, also ended up on tv!
@abhiramans9091 5 жыл бұрын
That's cool
@4th704 5 жыл бұрын
Cool
@bernlin2000 5 жыл бұрын
Too bad they still don't allow cameras in the actual courtroom 👎
@jenkem4464 5 жыл бұрын
So more obvious gerrymandering. Yaaay...
@BladeOfLight16 5 жыл бұрын
@@jenkem4464 As far as I know, the federal government has never intervened in cases of gerrymandering. So it will just stay the same.
@Robertganca 5 жыл бұрын
Can you make a video on what is happening with loot boxes?
@xileets 5 жыл бұрын
OOOOooooooo! Nice
@aprilrichards762 5 жыл бұрын
What is going on with loot boxes?
@Robertganca 5 жыл бұрын
April Richards Here is a video that explains it well. (This isn’t the only video on his channel about it. There are also others.) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bq-Kd8iL3KeVh6s.html
@steven7936 5 жыл бұрын
rather see a video on boot loxes.
@o76923 4 жыл бұрын
The bill on loot boxes and pay to win is still in committee, I believe. But it's definitely something I'd like to hear from more lawyers about.
@ASLTheatre 5 жыл бұрын
Thank you for keeping us Eagles up to date with Supreme Court cases.
@patricialeonard3643 3 жыл бұрын
"A TIME TO KILL" is a fabulous movie. One of my sons insisted that i buy it. Thank you, Stefan!!!
@flareren 5 жыл бұрын
“youtube is more arbitrary and capricious than the USPTO at this point” OH DAMN
@dstarfire42 4 жыл бұрын
That's actually how it's SUPPOSED to work in the US. The government (or any branch of it) can't restrict speech outside of a few narrowly defined exceptions. Private companies (like Alphabet, the corporate owners of Google and youtube) have no such obligation to support free speech. They can remove any content they like from their website, just like you can remove (or do whatever you want to) the 'vote for ...' signs somebody sticks in your yard.
@Mathignihilcehk 4 жыл бұрын
@@dstarfire42 Query the spirit of the law, considering how electronic forums, like KZfaq, Twitter, etc. are more akin to public squares than they are to private buildings. The question is, what is the point of the 1st amendment if you can't exercise free speech in any significant public forum? And what is the difference between public forums that are privately owned vs publicly owned? Historically, it was common-sense that the government would own relevant and significant public forums just by nature of what is necessary for the government to exist. That is no longer the case, with the advent of the internet. On the other hand, if you can argue that you can start up a new public forum from nothing, ie twitch vs mixer, youtube vs vimeo, etc. then clearly the internet contains just within itself a public forum you can use for free speech. If you dislike KZfaq, just stop using it.
@sagesheahan6732 4 жыл бұрын
Its true.
@theperfectmix2 3 жыл бұрын
@@Mathignihilcehk Should the government own a social media that has free speech like a public park?
@amyx231 4 жыл бұрын
But FCUK is the “UK branch” of an established brand (French Connection), FUCT was just trying to be notorious.
@derendohoda3891 5 жыл бұрын
This was without question the best video you've made that aren't fun meme videos. Really great, I hope to see one again next term!
@westingtyler2 5 жыл бұрын
Yes! do these each year! And hey, start a series where you do a video for each decade going back to the founding of the country (and beyond!). a FULL historical overview of all the important cases would be SO valuable from an educational standpoint.
@artos607 5 жыл бұрын
Can you make a video about the lawyers on the census case being reassigned, and then getting that reassignment halted by the judge? And explain the process of how an attorney removes themselves from a case, and why a judge would block that removal?
@ZoharielUK 5 жыл бұрын
Can you do a legal history lesson on the McCarthy era of Hollywood and how the courts ruled the listings and declarations forced were deemed illegal?
@pmains 5 жыл бұрын
There was no McCarthy era of Hollywood. Senator McCarthy investigated suspected Soviet agents in and around the US government. You're referring to the House Un-American Activities Committee that interrogated people like Walt Disney and Lucille Ball about alleged communists in Hollywood.
@isaacgleeth3609 5 жыл бұрын
@@pmains That would also be a great video, especially when we get into Dalton Trumbo and the other Hollywood Ten who, using the First Amendment as a basis for their right to political association, refused to testify before the HUAC.
@ZoharielUK 5 жыл бұрын
Excuse my limited knowledge, but this reiterates why I'd love a video on the subject. Also has there been any subsequent legislation that specifically tackles this kind of forcing people to declare themselves in this manner? This thought came about from the Censure case
@greencertifiedweb 5 жыл бұрын
@@pmains It's sad that McCarthy got saddled with that part when he had little or nothing to do with it. A lot of people don't know he did in fact find agents but had difficulty getting them out... The deep state goes back that far!
@andrewlewis414 5 жыл бұрын
Lillian Hellman’s letter has always intrigued me in the sense that she didn’t want to plead the 5th when asked about her personally, but would if asked about others. Apparently if you speak/answer questions concerning yourself, you’ve waived your option for a 5th and if you do not answer the questions on others’ activities, you can be held in contempt of court. Which she was. And blacklisted.
@codytackett9548 5 жыл бұрын
I like these videos. They do a great job of informing people of the actual laws/cases that exist and how they're viewed and enforced. I feel you're doing a great job of using the youtube platform to accurately inform people of what they should be knowing now.
@koberowland9798 3 жыл бұрын
Your channel is a life saver I need to write a essay on a recent supreme court case and was having trouble picking one to write about this video was just what I needed.
@Tibasu 5 жыл бұрын
Since this is a law related channel, I would like to hear your opinion on judges who give very lax sentences due to really half assed reasons. For example, the Judge James Troiano thing I heard about recently where a 16yo wasn't trialed as an adult for sexual assault because "he came from a good family and did well on college entry tests"
@TheSouthwestBoyz 5 жыл бұрын
Or Brock turner
@Tymbus 5 жыл бұрын
Quite right! He shouldn't be tried as an adult because he is a child. End of story.
@Trevin_Taylor 4 жыл бұрын
Tymbus uh, no. 16yo are tried as adults all the time. There is no “end of story”.
@Tymbus 4 жыл бұрын
@@Trevin_Taylor Well thy shouldn't be.
@Trevin_Taylor 4 жыл бұрын
Tymbus based on what? If someone is 17 and 364 days they don’t understand their actions but add 1 night’s sleep and they immediately wake up with a completely different worldview and pattern of behavior? Are the positions of the stars just magical in your mind? What numerology are you citing here?
@j.c.gleason766 5 жыл бұрын
Objection!!! The lack of Stella the Legal Beagle is disturbing 😂😂
@mpoindex1 4 жыл бұрын
Clicked on the video hoping to see discussion of Curtis Flowers’s case and was not disappointed!! Thanks for covering this! 😊
@hmhm856 4 жыл бұрын
LegalEagle, make sure to always talk about the dissenters in each case. I always loved reading their opinions in cases.
@wolflordy3193 5 жыл бұрын
I enjoyed this video a lot. I think it would have been nice to have a visual showing which justices were on which sides of the issues.
@TuesdaysArt 5 жыл бұрын
That would be useful- something like Mr. Beat does in his "Supreme Court Briefs".
@mackenziefaulkner253 5 жыл бұрын
That kind of stuff is on oyez.com, if you really want to look into it
@Messerschmidt_Me-262 4 жыл бұрын
The 'Fuct Trademark' is my new favourite terminology.
@IntelligentAj1 5 жыл бұрын
You're on to something with your channel direction!!! Keep up the excellent content!
@Bathrobebusiness 4 жыл бұрын
always love your videos !!! Great job man !!!!
@ericveneto1593 5 жыл бұрын
You should DEFINITELY do a video on SCOTUS political alignment
@dr.floridamanphd 5 жыл бұрын
Can you react to Find Me Guilty? 2006 flick starring Vin Diesel based on the actual prosecution of the Gambino “crime family.” The DVD says the trial parts were taken directly from court transcripts.
@Sophia-yb2tj 5 жыл бұрын
I was going to request that you talk about the Fuct trademark case and I just wanted to stop by and say that I was very excited to hear you discuss it!
@voltgod 5 жыл бұрын
I think the ad in the beginning, for suits, that make you look "fly", with an eagle screaming across the screen, is one of the best ads I've seen in at least 10 years. Kudos to whomever dreamt that up!
@WitchVulgar 5 жыл бұрын
"… suits that are four sizes too big …" Is ReviewBrah a lawyer?
@mick9665 4 жыл бұрын
I think it's safe to say that the ReviewBrah's suits are a part of his unique style. Not to mention, when you watch the videos of his daily routine he seems quite comfortable in those outfits. He even cleans the pool with his suit pants on.
@johnwescott1500 4 жыл бұрын
I think his mum buys them in the hope he'll grow into them.
@warlock1860 5 жыл бұрын
Warning on the stupid terms of service of KZfaq: Bleeping swear word "can" lead to demonetization*
@StefanLopuszanski 5 жыл бұрын
Not according to their online policy guide. Bleeping makes it safe from what KZfaq has said. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jL1xl91-0rSwqWQ.html
@calebgoodfellowcg 5 жыл бұрын
Well he's a lawyer Im sure he knows how to fight those things
@StefanLopuszanski 5 жыл бұрын
@@calebgoodfellowcg : Uh... there is no "fighting" those things really. KZfaq just does it stuff and that's pretty much it.
@dragonprinceHP 5 жыл бұрын
@@StefanLopuszanski There's no fighting but there are appeals and depending on the topic/issue, appeals can eventually pass.
@ironrose6 5 жыл бұрын
@@StefanLopuszanski While I understand and generally agree with your sentiments, Counselor Stone has made several posts talking about crap youtube has tried to pull on him that he's gotten reversed.
@paulrus-keaton439 4 жыл бұрын
Yearly follow ups on Supreme Court decisions would be great for this channel!
@wolverinebite1126 5 жыл бұрын
You kept an unbiased stance from the beginning to the end. Very becoming of a good lawyer. It's quite rare to see a purely informative video with no noticeable bias, and I thank you for posting exactly that.
@matthewscharf8712 5 жыл бұрын
Hey LegalEagle Can you do a video on the difference between legal secretaries and paralegals?
@rickbob682 5 жыл бұрын
Oh that's easy. One spits...
@matthewscharf8712 5 жыл бұрын
@@rickbob682 Can you explain?
@rickbob682 5 жыл бұрын
@@matthewscharf8712 no! You have 2 questions left.
@Blabla130 5 жыл бұрын
0:45 Darn! Now I want that episode about how supreme court justices' political alignment doesn't hold up! Be careful the episode topics you mention :)
@loraloo189 5 жыл бұрын
Really great review of the SCOTUS year - appreciate the analysis
@electrochemicalpathep5549 5 жыл бұрын
that was great. very well summarized. will subscribe for now!!
@JayTemple 5 жыл бұрын
Congratulations on getting through the first segment without laughing. (How many takes did you need?)
@davidcarmer4476 4 жыл бұрын
Honestly, this channel makes me want to have a job where I need to 'suit up.'
@elisabelinda2406 4 жыл бұрын
wowww why i just found out about this channel just now? your channel is so informative about american justice system and it has subtitle which i need. keep doing you man. 🙇
@jaykay3784 5 жыл бұрын
That was very informative. I will continue to watch and I will encourage others to watch them as well.
@ilayabr4100 5 жыл бұрын
nice tie
@Nuovoswiss 5 жыл бұрын
I liked this summary. It's good to know that the "partisan" appointments of the Judges doesn't hold true across all contexts.
@JayTemple 5 жыл бұрын
A reporter once asked President Eisenhower if he made any made any mistakes in office. (It was either the last months in office or the first months out of office.) He said, "Yes, and he's still on the Court." He was referring to Earl Warren, whom he had appointed as Chief Justice.
@ayala9854 5 жыл бұрын
this channel is so interesting and one of the best on KZfaq
@Tykku88 4 жыл бұрын
Quickly becoming my favorite fucting channel on youtube
@Sirenhound 5 жыл бұрын
So Fuddruckers could have a name change like in Idiocracy?
@dr.floridamanphd 5 жыл бұрын
Fuckrudders? Doubtful due to the spelling.
@andrewxc1335 5 жыл бұрын
I always thought it could be Ruddfuckers. Paul would be having a good day. Every day.
@zimpa5489 5 жыл бұрын
Apple v. Pepper What is going to happen to Apple, now that it has been decided (an important supreme court cases 2019)?
@ActingHerReaction 5 жыл бұрын
This is great. So helpful. 😭❤️
@breezyx976 5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for being at least near the center in terms of right/left politics, Your info is good.
@jetadams8570 5 жыл бұрын
I have close ties to the Curtis flowers trial. My mother is good friends with the people that have relatives that have been had been murdered. I do believe that he may be guilty but I also believe that court made the right choice absolutely. (Of course this pisses off my mother who doesn’t care if if unfair or not, as long as he’s in jail) When you kick all but one African American off of a jury, it looks very sketchy. Especially when discussing Mississippi. I think the Supreme Court made that right choice absolutely, but it also suck that good friends to my family have to go through another trial and have to look at pictures of their dead relatives year again. I’m kinda torn, but I believe everyone is equal and that they made the right choice.
@jacobredfield1386 5 жыл бұрын
#6 is pretty scary.... "Sir, I'm gonna need to take your blood" "uuuuuuhm no thanks thats mine" "too bad we want it so its our now"
@zamperini2272 5 жыл бұрын
I also found that... interesting. o.o
@DieYuppieScum91 5 жыл бұрын
In fairness, the decision was highly focused on the exigent circumstances clause. That makes it pretty narrow in scope. Still absurd reasoning to apply exigent circumstances to a blood draw.
@RannonSi 4 жыл бұрын
@@DieYuppieScum91 I wonder whether it matters if they're the reason for you being unconscious? - Do you consent to having your blood taken? - No. *Whack* - Now you do!
@hermoda 5 жыл бұрын
Great content! I enjoy how you cover these cases in a way that is clear and easy to understand! I would like you to mention the dissents and a short recap of them, to better understand the opposing views. I would also like to hear more about the different wings of the court and how they differ from the traditional liberal/conservative narrative we hear about!
@tonyflow6244 2 жыл бұрын
The segue to advert in this channel is always top drawer
@raimarulightning 5 жыл бұрын
The legislature will never stop gerrymandering because they are the ones most benefitting from the practice. If the Judicial Branch doesn't do something, then nothing will happen, power will be consolidated into a single party, and (judging by this last election) the majority of people's voices will go unheard. Could not possibly disagree more with the court's decision.
@danieldeming 5 жыл бұрын
The court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not decide if a particular version of governance is a "good idea" or not. You say you disagree so which section(s) of the Constitution do you believe are being violated?
@driftwisp2797 5 жыл бұрын
The part you missed is that it's not the legislature in general that's benefiting most, it's the right wing. If we ever manage to get a democratic majority anti-gerrymandering laws will be passed unless they're completely asleep at the wheel.
@PvblivsAelivs 4 жыл бұрын
@@driftwisp2797 Oh, you think gerrymandering is a new thing and that Democrats don't do it. Gerrymandering has been around as long as the country itself. And the Democrats _had_ a majority. They passed what is affectionately known as "Obamacare" without a single Republican vote. It seems they didn't think anti-gerrymandering laws were that important.
@kindlin 5 жыл бұрын
3:06 Because KZfaq is more arbitrary and capricious than the USPTO. Ouch, harsh. You need some cream for that burn?
@troodon1096 4 жыл бұрын
Also, KZfaq is a privately owned entity and thus has every right to regulate what can and can not be said on their platform. The USPTO as an arm of the US government has a lot less latitude in that regard.
@sagesheahan6732 4 жыл бұрын
@@troodon1096 Both points are truth. KZfaq may be able to, but that doesn't not make it arbitrary and capricious.
@jpercario21 5 жыл бұрын
You're one of my favorite channels. This was really great and consice info. Quick question, did you get demonetized?
@milrevko 4 жыл бұрын
Your channel is awesome keep up the good work
@Artak091 5 жыл бұрын
If no one said "this case is fuct up", then the legal system has let me down.
@jeffsykes4589 5 жыл бұрын
Great! That means I can open a sailboat themed seafood restaurant named Hookers n Blow!
@andrewmayles3369 5 жыл бұрын
I love these real law reviews!
@RolandHazoto 5 жыл бұрын
thanks to previous plugs I can't hear the word Indochino and not hear that whisper in my head. It was the last thing I said last night before i went to sleep xD
@TheCoolestFalconEva 5 жыл бұрын
14:44 How was Gerald Mitchell charged with a DUI if the police found him "...soaking wet and sloppy drunk in a sandy beach in Wisconsin"? Is a sandy beach a car model I don't know?
@dragonprinceHP 5 жыл бұрын
Exactly my point! I'm confused - There's something not specified that may have given the police license to take him to the hospital first off.
@BEWhiteDragon00 5 жыл бұрын
Falcoon That's...actually a good point lol
@isaacgleeth3609 5 жыл бұрын
I believe it was likely public intoxication, which is illegal in most places.
@TheCoolestFalconEva 5 жыл бұрын
@@isaacgleeth3609 Graphic at 14:44 says DUI not public intoxication. 15:28 "Wisconsin state law says that DRIVERS ON ITS ROADS presumably consent to a blood test". Nowhere in the story told in the video did Mitchell touch a car or road.
@matthewstafford7150 5 жыл бұрын
Someone called the police saying they saw the intoxicated Mitchell enter a gray van and drive off. After 30 minutes of searching the cops found him on the beach. He stated he realized he was too drunk to drive and so he parked. www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2019/04/23/supreme-court-hear-wisconsin-dui-case-blood-draw-without-consent/3405898002/
@comradeofthebalance3147 5 жыл бұрын
But but, In God We Trust did not appear till the 50s?
@euansmith3699 5 жыл бұрын
These Indochino adverts are about the only ads I enjoy watching these days.
@michaelpisciarino5348 4 жыл бұрын
2:28 Viewpoint Discrimination Trademarking racial slurs 4:28 Profane Trademarks 4:40 Jury Selection of Curtis Flowers 6:49 Census Citizenship question 10:32 Partisan Gerrymandering (is not going away, "nothing new") 12:31 Dual Sovereignty Doctrine 14:34 Searches & Seizures 16:34 Peace Cross 18:07 Indochino
@jawstrock2215 4 жыл бұрын
soo "Do you consent to a blood test?" 'no..' *knocks unconscious* "There now we can". Make sure no witness to the clubbing to lose consciousness and voila :D
@noneofyerbisness8702 4 жыл бұрын
A basic medical examination (as is required upon admitting an unconscious patient) would find evidence of trauma incredibly easily. When you knock somebody out, there's always a trace for a medical professional to find whether you use drugs or trauma. Now if you injected them with ethanol...
@horrorhotel1999 4 жыл бұрын
@@noneofyerbisness8702 Pretty sure a large malleable object such as a phone book or a well packed bag of clothes to the back of your skull can impart enough momentum to knock you out while having enough surface area to do so without leaving any superficial traces of damage aside from a slight reddening of the skin, which would (in most people) be covered by hair. The only trace that would remain would be intracranial, which aren't necessarily assessed during a standard admission. Luckily, the police is not in the habit of carrying such objects
@--enyo-- 3 жыл бұрын
@@noneofyerbisness8702 They could always say they were in an accident that may have resulted from them being intoxicated.
@tallflguy 5 жыл бұрын
4:10 Can’t fire the owner of the team.
@davefickess7973 5 жыл бұрын
Donald Sterling, the former owner of the NBA's Los Angeles Clippers, might disagree with you on that.
@tallflguy 5 жыл бұрын
Dave Fickess Well technically he wasn’t fired, just forced to sell the team, but that an extreme exception to the rule.
@davefickess7973 5 жыл бұрын
@@tallflguy I understand, but this is a distinction without a difference. They forced him out.
@attiepollard7847 4 жыл бұрын
@@davefickess7973 another then be a suck ass owner of a team exactly what has Dan Snyder done that is detrimental to the league to force him out as owner of the NFL franchise?
@tommack352 5 жыл бұрын
In 1980 in Iowa, the gerrymandering was so bad that the Iowa Supreme Court threw out what the legislature did and redistricted the state themselves. It is a lot harder than most people realize.
@septegram 5 жыл бұрын
"So f*** yeah." OK, I'm cracking up at work. Thanks!
@Chronoflation 5 жыл бұрын
The reasoning was contrived, but citizenship seems like a sensible enough question to ask when the census is used to establish representation of the citizens. If you are not a citizen, then your state should not get extra representation just because you are there. Congressmen represent the citizens of their states, and representing anyone who is not a citizen would give more favor for states to fight against federal law to try to absorb undocumented immigrants prior to the census in order to get more representational power. It puts the interest of the government against that of the citizens who they represent in favor of people who have illegally entered the country, because they basically act as an inflationary tool to make states seem bigger than they actually are, in terms of representation
@megalocerus1573 4 жыл бұрын
Constitution specifically includes all free persons (including indentures excluding Indians) living there. Does not have to be a citizen. Slaves count 3/5s. Right to vote doesn't matter either.
@PapaJon325 5 жыл бұрын
Objection! The case was Batson v. Kentucky.
@loxisonix 5 жыл бұрын
Papa iz Blazin glad I scanned through the comments before saying the same thing
@spudwrucker93 5 жыл бұрын
I remember when my world history teacher went over all these movies with me. Glad you're covering them.
@hyojinlee 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for this video! :)
@TheVidzgamez73 5 жыл бұрын
Literally could not stop laughing every time you said Fuct hahaha
@AidanRayRenDomo 5 жыл бұрын
Can we get a review of "When They See Us", the Netflix Drama about the Central Park 5?
@Pinkietona 5 жыл бұрын
I love this format!
@markclark8454 5 жыл бұрын
I love your videos! What's your thoughts on gibson vs dean lawsuit?
@alexiane250 5 жыл бұрын
~17:12 "'god we trust' over the objections of non-theists." A better way of wording that would have been to remove 'non-theists' as some non Christians and Christians that believe in separation of state-and-church should be included
@TodayLifeIsGoood 5 жыл бұрын
I may be christian yet I still think church and state should be strictly separated
@jayfaraday1176 5 жыл бұрын
At 3:00 you can see the full swear word. I find that amusing somewhat.
@newflesh666 5 жыл бұрын
Same here
@soundninja99 5 жыл бұрын
What? I only see random letters
@jayfaraday1176 5 жыл бұрын
@@soundninja99 You have to scrub a bit, but it's there. I found it on mobile, so you can definitely see it on PC. It's only there for a split-second though.
@soundninja99 5 жыл бұрын
@@jayfaraday1176 it was a joke, but thanks
@jayfaraday1176 5 жыл бұрын
@@soundninja99 Oh, I apologize. That didn't come across.
@lurkmoar5834 5 жыл бұрын
Fascinating stuff, thank you
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 275 М.
LastWeekTonight
Рет қаралды 437 М.
PBS NewsHour
Рет қаралды 1,5 МЛН
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 963 М.