I don't know how effective it was to have people line up without allowing them to speak about their opinion-- I feel like I pre-judged people without having a chance to hear them talk based on where they fell
I want to start off by saying that it was fantastic that we all go the opportunity to speak in the last hour of the class. It's hard to find a place to get your participation credit in when the same people were being called on.
Totally lost in today’s class but it resembles the discussion in our congress in the sense that there is no conclusion at all. Re the impeachment, I personally dont see Trump a terrible president coz we had even bad ones. The impeachment should be just a chance to make the president pay for what kind of person he is, rather than really achieve the purpose of this system.
I think the discussion proceeded as well as could be expected. I'm so grateful *for* these conversations, but I wonder if more people would offer more divergent views (within broader "Left" and "center-left" buckets, for example) depending on the level of anonymity provided. and +2000 to snacks and please bring back cute god aka sweet pea
What would have been a more fruitful alternative to the lineup would have been to ask people to write whether they were #TeamMcConnell or #TeamPelosi on the thread. I'm sure there would have been more variety in responses in that case.
And also on the teaching assistants, i would say my discussion group is totally off the track and we should have more ground rules for discussion within the group, like each one speak for 2 mins and then discuss? Coz it is totally depending on if you want to cut off the others, and obviously some people is willing to do that! @Professor Nesson
I am on the left but I, like Nesson, wish there were more people farther right on the spectrum to increase the discourse in the class. It would be nice if the arguments from the right could actually come from people on the right rather than us all assuming what they would say.
Given the breakdown of the class into mostly Left. I think it would have been interesting to divide us into center left, moderate, left-left and see how the conversation proceeded given that there was no one of the conservative side of the room/discussion
This was a really exciting and powerful class. I wish though that those who were part of the small minority in the middle/right would have been given more of a chance to talk, especially since they were going against the typical echo-chamber
Naturally, the discussion may have been more comprehensive (and likely much more contentious) if we had a broader representation of the ideological spectrum. Of course, this would require intelligent people buying into the often time illogical conclusions of the GOP. But I appreciate that even those who disagreed with each other engaged in a healthy debate and articulated their perspectives in a thought-provoking yet respectful way.
I really liked Jordan's point at the end, and would be interested in teasing out the potential contradictions in our support for jury nullification vs our apprehension towards allowing the public decide on impeachment. I think this also goes towards discussions around the composition of the deciding body, and requirements of knowledge/impartiality/etc.
I enjoyed having different viewpoints presented in class, and marrying the smaller group format with a larger class discussion afterwards was appreciated. On the issue of impeachment, the points made about whether the election actually constitutes a reasonable means of voting on impeachment. My inclination is no. I think the deeper issue that we touched upon, but should definitely be exploring more, is the incompatibility of the constitution with public developments at large. The constitution was envisioned in a world that is very different from the one today, and perhaps the issues we should be talking about re: impeachment is not the impeachment process itself, but rather, how reform of the constitution itself should proceed.
The closing comments on jury nullification were superb. In a way, the Senate is acting as a jury and it seems like the class is against nullification here, whereas there were strong opinions in the opposite direction with the gun case. It's hard for me to discuss impeachment as a constitutional process when political parties weren't even thought to be of concern when the constitution was being drafted. It's all politics and it feels too disingenuous to talk about here without being cynical of the process itself. Still, it was nice to hear all of yall's opinions. Looking forward to class tomorrow.
Re: nullification, wonder if people feel Clinton should've been removed; I think the argument he was innocent was very small, and I think most agree that he wasn't convicted because of politics. How do folks feel about that? I'm curious
I appreciated the different approaches we took to facilitate today's discussion. I think there is value in being able to discuss these issues in a small group environment to develop our thoughts and then come back into a big group to have a more well thought-out discussion. However, there may be value in focusing conversations by having us engage with individual questions. I felt, at points, the conversation was a little disorganized as people were talking about different issues and were not directly engaging each other. Overall though, I thought the class was fantastic.
I did feel that lining up and being forced to "out myself" as not far left was anethema to the whole other aspect of the class which supports anonymity and the ability to express oneself without fear of reprisal
I understand the impulse to explain the lineup through partisanship. To a large extent, that probably explains much. But also consider that the one side's arguments - as presented through the final discourse - are considering more compelling and consistent with our constitutional design. I think looking only at a right/left dichotomy may give the right more credit than it deserves. It hasn't made a strong case.
Great class! The group discussion was excellent, and I liked going from group to full class. It was unfortunate (though not unexpected) that we didn't have anyone to the right in the lineup. I think the best full-class discussions unfold when Prof. Nesson asks follow-up questions of the person who has just spoken, or when he asks the next person who speaks to follow-up on a given theme. But I also appreciate the wide-ranging, free-flowing discussion
retweet that we should explore the differences of views within the left and also wish we could've discussed the jury nullification issue more, because i find the two issues to be completely different and i wish we could've explored that more to tease out why it's different, re the comment in the other group about saving someone's liberty v allowing someone to have great power
I would also like to point out that I believe that without the peer pressure of fearing to speak out publicly about such a contentious matter, some may have sided more to the right. I find it hard to believe that in such a small group of highly educated and intelligent people that there is such overwhelming uniformity of thought. What a shame!
uniformity of opinion on an issue does not mean that the people are not intelligent, and it's not always a goal to strive for. if i polled the class and everyone said racism was bad, i'd be happy, not disappointed.
I think it could have been interesting if, after polling our opinions on the issue, we were made to argue for the other side in order to better understand their position and examine our own biases. We did a bit of this in class, but I feel it could have gone further