All threads

All of the threads for this selected topic

Final Class Feedback [12-01-20]

24 replies | 24 unread

Of what is this 'evidence'?

2 replies | 2 unread

Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo

28 replies | 28 unread

Feedback [11-30-20]

44 replies | 44 unread

Thanksgiving Thread

19 replies | 19 unread

Peremptory Challenges [11-23-2020]

77 replies | 77 unread

Feedback [11-17-20]

57 replies | 57 unread

Your questions, doubts and concerns about confrontation and cross as core jury process.

22 replies | 22 unread

Feedback November 10

17 replies | 17 unread

Feedback [11-09-20]

24 replies | 24 unread

Discussion Group 2 [11-9-2020]

19 replies | 19 unread

Discussion Group 1 [11-9-2020]

28 replies

Election Night

25 replies | 25 unread

George Fisher Caves [11-03-2020]

29 replies | 29 unread

Group 1 [11-03-2020]

53 replies | 53 unread

Group 2 [11-03-2020]

49 replies | 49 unread

Group 3 [11-03-2020]

35 replies | 35 unread

Feedback 11-2-2020

34 replies | 34 unread

Feedback 10-27-2020

47 replies | 47 unread

Discussion 10-27-2020

59 replies | 59 unread

Feedback 10-26-2020

51 replies | 51 unread

Hypothetical 10-19-20

49 replies | 49 unread

Feedback 10-20-2020

15 replies | 15 unread

Feedback 10-19-20

22 replies | 22 unread

Surveillance 10-19-20

46 replies | 46 unread

Feedback October 13, 2020

20 replies | 20 unread


31 replies | 31 unread

REVIEW - October 13, 2020. Please offer questions and concerns.

3 replies | 3 unread

Feedback Oct 6, 2020 - violence of discussion for some

7 replies | 7 unread

Feedback October 6, 2020

67 replies | 67 unread

Feedback Oct 5, 2020 Fair

4 replies | 4 unread

Gatecrasher - Who Wins?

15 replies | 15 unread

Blue Bus

25 replies | 25 unread

Conjunction --In what order should we decide the elements of the alleged crime?

21 replies | 21 unread

Prison Yard - Can WE prosecute all of them?

38 replies | 38 unread

Feedback [09-29-20]

17 replies | 17 unread

Would you be interested in joining together in threads while watching the Trump-Biden debate?

20 replies | 20 unread

feedback sept 28

26 replies | 26 unread

What is your biggest fear going forward?

40 replies | 40 unread

BIAS (in judgmen)t

9 replies | 9 unread

Feedback #1

30 replies | 30 unread

racism - anti-racism

41 replies | 41 unread

what is your passion?

40 replies | 40 unread

What do you feel you have to learn about fair trial? Do you feel that fair trial matters?

9 replies | 9 unread

Give Thanks

0 replies

Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
OP: Hello everyone! Should we use originalism to try and gain criminal defendants rights? Or should we rely only on reform by statute or even constitutional amendment? What are the advantages/disadvantages of either approach?
Proxima Centauri: heyyyyyyy ;)
Spalla: we love you gaia
Scala: We should never promote or use originalism for the sake of originalism. There is some reason to start from the text because its the most logical place to start
Deimos: Can I get a refresher on the relevant facts of Apprendi and Crawford?
Proxima Centauri: what if originalism is best option given current composition of the court?
Mars: I'm just really confused about this entire discussion and I think I personally needed more of an intro. I still don't understand the admissibility vs sufficiency distinction, and I don't see how Scalia collapsed the confrontation clause
Scala: but the original understanding of the constitution should not govern 240 years later
Mars: But Gaia's summary was still really helpful! I think I just need more of that
Umbriel: I'm with Mars on this
Vorash: I don't really understand the framing of looking at the question of "should" with respect to originalism. If you accept the framework wouldnt the point be to decide simply based on original intent regardless of the consequences. I feel like regardless of what interepative framework you use to justify it on consequential grounds to either increase or decrease 6th amend. rights seems super short sighted
Dakara: hi everyone
OP: Summaries of Apprendi and Crawford and I'll do some back in the big room too: Apprendi: we should have the jury consider any facts we use to increase sentences beyond the statutory maximum (very rights protective) Crawford: Scalia equates the confrontation clause to hearsay rules basically says all the 6th Amendment was supposed to protect against was "admissibility" of evidence and not whether that evidence is sufficient to put a case before the jury
Scala: I think that crawford was obviously different than raliegh in that crawford actually didnt want to confront anything. but crawford had a protection and expectation of privacy with his spouse and having this testimony eroded that right, so the result was correct- just not sure the connection to raleigh was appropriate
Celestis: My question would be, prior to Mattox (the source of the confusion), did courts treat the Confrontation Clause as creating a sufficiency rule?
Mars: thanks Gaia!
Dakara: i think we should see if there is a textual grounding in original ism if not, then we should go to statue or even constitutional amendment. We should not try to force a puzzle piece that does not fit
Earth: reform by statute or constitutional amendment is preferable to using any interpretive framework on the constitution but given the current makeup of the judiciary, we should look into ways to use the originalist framework to expand rights
Scala: going back to the beginning of the convo about originialism, I just always think you need some other justification in addition to originalism for the argument to hold weight. Like there are reasons outside of the traditional reading to operate a system in that way. in this case, its especially clear given that scalia actually clearly misreads both the text and original understanding of the clause. so hes really not justifying this rights expansion on originalism
Celestis: My view is that statutory/constitutional reform guards against shifts in the composition of the Supreme Court, as well as ever-changing interpretive approaches.
Proxima Centauri: @Vorash but as a lawyer for a client facing this this issue, should you not be only concerned with the consequences for your client?
Felucia: I guess I don't understand why the outcome of Crawford is so bad. Aren't there other ways we double check sufficiency of evidence?
Scala: I dont think the outcome of crawford is bad at all, i just dont think its really based on originalism in my opinion, and that is no flaw for me
Procyon A: Scalia's opinion in Crawford is an effort to cement his emphasis on methodology of interpretation (originalism) - as opposed to actual adjudication of a case. Even though Scalia is clearly a part of why we have a mass incarceration problem - and has a clear record of being pro prosecutor - Crawford weirdly comes out ~somewhat~ pro defendant because this is Scalia flexing with originalism and wrongfully applying the 6th amendment. The case reads as him upholding a methodology of interpretation as opposed to actually adjudicating / properly interpreting the law. All of this is a Scalia flex for originalism (structural, textual, etc.)
Vorash: While Nesson's critique offers an alternative originalist view of Raleigh but I am not sure that this is necessarily the correct reading? Both views seem somewhat plausible at a high level and I feel like we would need more of the history to reach a conclusion
Felucia: One more time for the people in the back...Gaia is a champ