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

Discussion Group 2 [11-9-2020]

19 replies | 19 unread

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


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: Hi everyone give us your feedback!
Saturn: Today's class was very dense and we started it off really quickly with tons of information. I know I would benefit from a recap and review and maybe a Q&A tomorrow morning!
Fox Hollow: I would prefer more of a primer before diving into breakout rooms. I felt like we spent a decent amount of time just trying to understand the background as we didn't really get enough context inititally
Lantea: HI great class. I would appreciate more talking and explaining by Professor Nesson. The TAs are great but the Professor is great too.
Fox Hollow: Agree with Saturn
Umbriel: While I really enjoyed the breakout room discussion, I felt a majority of us were genuinely confused and didn't have nearly enough background info to be having the discussions we were supposed to be talking about. Also, it didn't seem like the rooms were on the same wavelength
Mercury: I also agree with Saturn
Jupiter: I agree with a bit more information before jumping into breakout rooms. I still felt a bit lost based on the complexity of the matter.
Fox Hollow: Also prefer smaller breakout rooms if possible, perhaps with the TA's jumping
Rinde: Didn't really understand the "sufficiency" point and could not discuss it. I feel like there was an easier way of doing this: What does Scalia think the confrontation clause means vs. what does the constitution say it means. I feel like this was the theme of today's discussion but then we threw in "sufficiency" and "admissibility" and I got pretty confused.
Dakara: why shouldn't we think of originalism as determining the floor for rights and think of legislation as a means to expand those rights. I felt like today's discussion operated under the presupposition that those two means of determining the law were fundamentally at odds and I don't know if I agree with that. The closest I got to understanding that argument was halfway through our breakout room when Anthony articulated his fears about originalism limited statutory reform
Fox Hollow: Half the class in one room doesn't really seem small enough for "discussion"
Jupiter: Also the extra-curricular activity/audio Judge Preska isn't happened today, right?
Fox Hollow: Agreed I was genuinely confused for a lot of class today
Fox Hollow: I think no @Earth
Umbriel: Agreed with the above. I felt like the breakout room was a weird twilight zone where I was supposed to know what was going on but truly didn't. And we're all just stabbing around blindly
Rinde: Agree with Orilla. Having Anthony or Gaia in the room is beneficial but it increases number of students which in turn decreases the value of a breakout room.
Tethys: We also didn't discuss anything post Crawford so how are we supposed to know if the decision led to problematic results?? The summary at the beginning ended so abruptly with the case being called the tragedy of originalism
Jupiter: I was one of the students who wanted to participate today but just felt a bit too confused to do so.
Centaurus A: I thought Gaia's room was great. I like the TA calling on people because it forces people to get involved, and I liked having to give definite pros/cons for originalism because no 'pros' would have emerged otherwise. Today was clearly an attempt to get a more balanced view from the class
Jealousy: why cant we just have fair trials?
Centaurus A: But agree that today's topic was very confusing
Venus: also advocate for smaller breakout rooms
Umbriel: I would love to learn substantively about fair trial, for example today about the confrontation clause, but it seemed liked the conversation for the threads and breakouts was so broad — is originalism good; or should we have admissibility or sufficiency rules? I think it's hard to talk about the broad without having a fuller understanding of the cases and the smaller questions