All threads

All of the threads for this selected topic

Of what is this 'evidence'?

2 replies | 2 unread | updated about 13 hours ago

Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo

28 replies | 28 unread | updated about 13 hours ago

Feedback [11-30-20]

44 replies | 44 unread | updated about 14 hours ago

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

Discussion Group 1 [11-9-2020]

28 replies | 28 unread

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

i&i

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
Dakara: I think relying on originalism is a little too constricting
Earth: What do you meant by constricting? Also love that your name is almost Scalia.
Earth: I feel like originalism could be a way to get defendants back some of the rights that Nesson thinks have been taken from them, but then what?The constitution was written by rich white men who owned slaves, so realistically, how far can we expect it to go? Is that what you mean by constricting?
Lothal: If the question is should we ONLY rely on defendants' rights reform via statute or amendment, I think that's wrong. Those avenues can certainly help, but the Constitution was written at a time when the Founders were inherently suspect of state power. Thus, to the extent defendants' rights have been distorted, originalism can help get us back there
Rakverelin: I noticed that Scalia in the video paints the picture perfectly. I like the originalism interpretation of the law however purpose of the law should also have a strong effect.
Dione: I think something important to talk about on this is the question of how the confrontation clause was treated prior to the controversy. Scalia in Crawford presents his approach as a sort of returning to the prior treatment of it- was the prior use of the confrontation clause predominantly as an admissibility rule? It seems like the answer to that is no in this case, but I don't know enough to say.
Dakara: Abydos, pretty much what I meant is that the constitution is not going to be a frame to obtain rights for a lot of groups given its context. It wasn't designed to give rights to minorities and I think that makes it not a perfectvehicle for that
Earth: Scala, that makes a lot of sense.
Chulak: how does the original view of the confrontation clause give rights to defendants? can someone explain the difference between the originalist view and the contextualist view?
Tegamo: if we are evolving in our understanding of criminal defendant's rights then all reform should be considered. Original understanding could not account for the technological advances used in examining evidence or creating testimony by recording, telephone calls etc.
Dakara: So if the confrontation clause were acting as an admissibility rule, would it's proper usage be to prevent cases with insufficient evidence from reaching the jury and be thrown out by judges? is that the goal?
Dorndal: Maybe I'm completely off base here but this is how I see it. Whether the testimonial or not, per the confrontation clause, anyone incriminating the defendant should testify in court in front of the defendant. if the 6th am was a direct reaction to Raleigh , then it is irrelevant if the statement made was testimonial or not because it incriminates the defendant nevertheless. I think Scalia carved out for an exception for non-testimonial statements and that is one of the problems.
Dione: That's my understanding as well Dorndal.
Rhea: reform by statute or constitutional amendment is better than 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
Langara: I am deeply skeptical that there is even an original meaning to be found in any text, which is the fatal flaw of originalism. This case and others like it, specifially those cases dealing with reasonableness and the warrant requirement show that there are often two equally compelling interpretations of the plain meaning of the text even under an originalist framework. Different strategies, canons of interpretations, and which historical evidence is relied upon most get you to different answers even with the originalist mindset. And ultimately, values, ideology and psychology are what determines which of those things judges choose to emphasize more or less. Thus, it seems doomed from the start.
Lothal: I think originalism has its limits for sure (how would it apply to technological changes today?), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its uses either. It should only be one part of reform and of an interpretive strategy, but it should be one part nonetheless
Rhea: i want to speak anthony, but i dont understand this well enough, and I dont think it would benefit our overall discussion
Pinwheel: None of us understand what we're supposed to be talking about so the conversation is stifled