A Conversation on the Constitution - Part 2 The Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society co-sponsored this discussion between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on December 5, 2006. The Justices engaged in an interesting and important discussion on the Constitution and their methods of interpretation. ABC Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated. Part 2 of 10
Statutory Interpretation, Pt. 7 The Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2009, during The Federalist Society's 2009 National Lawyers Convention. This debate featured Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Prof. John F. Manning of Harvard Law School as the moderator. Introduction by Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. RESOLVED: The United States Constitution Requires Federal Courts to Interpret Statutes as Honest Agents of the Enacting Congress. Part 7 of 9
A Conversation on the Constitution - Part 6 The Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society co-sponsored this discussion between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on December 5, 2006. The Justices engaged in an interesting and important discussion on the Constitution and their methods of interpretation. ABC Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated. Part 6 of 10
A Conversation on the Constitution - Part 4 The Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society co-sponsored this discussion between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on December 5, 2006. The Justices engaged in an interesting and important discussion on the Constitution and their methods of interpretation. ABC Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated. Part 4 of 10
Statutory Interpretation, Pt. 6 The Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2009, during The Federalist Society's 2009 National Lawyers Convention. This debate featured Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Prof. John F. Manning of Harvard Law School as the moderator. Introduction by Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. RESOLVED: The United States Constitution Requires Federal Courts to Interpret Statutes as Honest Agents of the Enacting Congress. Part 6 of 9
Statutory Interpretation, Pt. 4 The Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2009, during The Federalist Society's 2009 National Lawyers Convention. This debate featured Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Prof. John F. Manning of Harvard Law School as the moderator. Introduction by Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. RESOLVED: The United States Constitution Requires Federal Courts to Interpret Statutes as Honest Agents of the Enacting Congress. Part 4 of 9
Statutory Interpretation, Pt. 2 The Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2009, during The Federalist Society's 2009 National Lawyers Convention. This debate featured Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Prof. John F. Manning of Harvard Law School as the moderator. Introduction by Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. RESOLVED: The United States Constitution Requires Federal Courts to Interpret Statutes as Honest Agents of the Enacting Congress. Part 2 of 9
A Conversation on the Constitution - Part 9 The Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society co-sponsored this discussion between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on December 5, 2006. The Justices engaged in an interesting and important discussion on the Constitution and their methods of interpretation. ABC Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated. Part 9 of 10
A Conversation on the Constitution - Part 5 The Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society co-sponsored this discussion between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on December 5, 2006. The Justices engaged in an interesting and important discussion on the Constitution and their methods of interpretation. ABC Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated. Part 5 of 10
A Conversation on the Constitution - Part 10 The Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society co-sponsored this discussion between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on December 5, 2006. The Justices engaged in an interesting and important discussion on the Constitution and their methods of interpretation. ABC Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated. Part 10 of 10
Activist vs Originalist - Part II A revealing conversation featuring Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Antonin Scalia regarding different methods of judicial interpretation.
Defeat Justice Robert Young - Trentadue v. Buckler Automatice Sprinkler Co. Young's actions are self-explanatory. He and the other "majority of four" Justices are extremists backed by powerful special interests. Kelly, Cavanagh, and Weaver are moderates. It is still too early to tell on Hathaway, but she seems to agree with the three moderates that the "Gang of Four" went way too far to the point of bias under the guise of faux "conservatism" and textualism "when it suits him."
reel_ORF
free reel
Defeat Justice Robert Young - Brown v. Brown This is the latest installment on the soon to be former Supreme Court Justice's opinions which have made a mockery of Michigan law, and common sense jurisprudence in our state under the guise of "conservatism." Instead, insurance company profiteering and corporate profits is the actual outcome driving this mission under the pettifoggery of "textualism".
A Conversation on the Constitution - Part 1 The Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society co-sponsored this discussion between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on December 5, 2006. The Justices engaged in an interesting and important discussion on the Constitution and their methods of interpretation. ABC Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated. Part 1 of 10
Hermeneutics, Scriptural Politics, and Human Rights: Between Text and Context Edited by MA Mohamed Salih, Bas de Gaay Fortman and Kurt Martens Published by Palgrave Macmillan ISBN: 9780230622234 Content: Introduction; MAMSalih, Gaay Fortman& K.Martens PART I: HERMENEUTICS, COMMUNITIES OF READERS AND CONTEXT - Religious Identity, Difference and Human Rights: The Crucial Role of Hermeneutics; MAMSalih& Gaay Fortman - Islamic Texts, Democracy, and the Rule of Law: Towards a Hermeneutics of Conciliation; S.Haq - Interpretation in Canon Law: Faith or Reason; P.Brown - Judicial Textualism: An ***ysis of Textualism as Applied to the United States Constitution; H.Philipse - Arbitrary Readings? Christianity and Islam as Capricious Hermeneutic Communities; K.S***brink - Changing Hermeneutics in Reading and Understanding the Bible: The Case of the Gospel of Mark; G.van Oyen PART II: HERMENEUTIC, SCRIPTUAL POLITICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS - The Qur'an and Religious Freedom; A.Mirmoosavi - Dignitatis Humanae. A Hermeneutic Perspective on Religious Freedom as Interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church; K.Martens - Strangers and Residents: The Hermeneutic Challenge of Non-Jewish Minorities in Israel; D.Weissman - Religious Texts as Models for Exclusion. Scriptural Interpretation and Ethnic Politics in Northern Nigeria; N.Kastfelt - Jihad from a Shi'a Hermeneutic Perspective; S.Haghighat - Views on Women in Early Christianity: International Hermeneutics in Tertullian and Augustine; W.Otten - Women's Rights and the Interpretation of Islamic Texts: The Practice ...
CAC President: Progressives Win When Judges Look to the Constitution's Text and History On July 18, 2011, the Brookings Institution hosted a debate between Constitutional Accountability Center President Doug Kendall and University of Chicago Law Professor Geof Stone on how progressives can take back the Constitution from conservatives. Using conservative, Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton's recent decision to uphold the health care reform law as evidence, Kendall argued that progressives win in the courts when arguments are based on the Constitution's text and history.
Looking for the look
Statutory Interpretation, Pt. 3 The Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2009, during The Federalist Society's 2009 National Lawyers Convention. This debate featured Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Prof. John F. Manning of Harvard Law School as the moderator. Introduction by Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. RESOLVED: The United States Constitution Requires Federal Courts to Interpret Statutes as Honest Agents of the Enacting Congress. Part 3 of 9
A Conversation on the Constitution - Part 7 The Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society co-sponsored this discussion between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on December 5, 2006. The Justices engaged in an interesting and important discussion on the Constitution and their methods of interpretation. ABC Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated. Part 7 of 10
Re: Is Scalia's Originalism Really Homophobia? I offer some corrections to what seems to me to be a misunderstanding of textual originalism, which Antonin Scalia claims is the best approach to constitutional interpretation. There are a few typos in the video that I didn't notice before I uploaded it. Sorry. :-( Links: SeanChapin1's video: Text of Justice Scalia's 1996 address at The Catholic University of America: James Madison on originalism (quoted in the video):
Statutory Interpretation, Pt. 1 The Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2009, during The Federalist Society's 2009 National Lawyers Convention. This debate featured Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Prof. John F. Manning of Harvard Law School as the moderator. Introduction by Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. RESOLVED: The United States Constitution Requires Federal Courts to Interpret Statutes as Honest Agents of the Enacting Congress. Part 1 of 9
Statutory Interpretation, Pt. 8 The Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2009, during The Federalist Society's 2009 National Lawyers Convention. This debate featured Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Prof. John F. Manning of Harvard Law School as the moderator. Introduction by Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. RESOLVED: The United States Constitution Requires Federal Courts to Interpret Statutes as Honest Agents of the Enacting Congress. Part 8 of 9
Statutory Interpretation, Pt. 5 The Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2009, during The Federalist Society's 2009 National Lawyers Convention. This debate featured Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Prof. John F. Manning of Harvard Law School as the moderator. Introduction by Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. RESOLVED: The United States Constitution Requires Federal Courts to Interpret Statutes as Honest Agents of the Enacting Congress. Part 5 of 9
CAC President Explains "New Textualism" at Brookings Debate On July 18, 2011, the Brookings Institution hosted a debate between Constitutional Accountability Center President Doug Kendall and University of Chicago Law Professor Geof Stone on how progressives can take back the Constitution from conservatives. Kendall argued that progressives should root constitutional interpretation in the Constitution's text and history first and foremost.
Statutory Interpretation, Pt. 9 The Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2009, during The Federalist Society's 2009 National Lawyers Convention. This debate featured Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Prof. John F. Manning of Harvard Law School as the moderator. Introduction by Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. RESOLVED: The United States Constitution Requires Federal Courts to Interpret Statutes as Honest Agents of the Enacting Congress. Part 9 of 9
Patent Law and Policy Moderator: Dr. Roberta Morris, Stanford Panelists: Morgan Chu, Irell & Manella Professor Mark Lemley, Stanford Professor Peter Menell, UC Berkeley Steven Weiner, SRI International The first panel, as the name suggests, took a general look at the current state of patent law and its relationship to innovation. In order to understand where we sit today, Peter Menell, Law Professor at UC Berkeley, offered an overview of the history of patent law and the differences between a flexible, common-law like approach to its interpretation and a stricter, text-based statutory approach. He argued that the latter approach is an inappropriate one, because Congress cannot possibly maintain those statutes in the face of ever-evolving technology. And Bilski itself represents superficial textualism and a missed opportunity to return patent-law interpretation to its technological moorings. Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley then offered a summary of Bilski and its message that the Federal Circuit's bright-line approach was impermissible. The Court failed to offer an adequate alternative, however, indicating that the machine-or-transformation (MOT) test is still a helpful inquiry, but that the key consideration is whether an invention is too abstract to be patented. Since Bilski, lower courts have overwhelmingly continued to use the MOT test as a gateway inquiry. And the Federal Circuit has since weighed in as well, but its two post-Bilski decisions have moved in opposite directions: one ...
A Conversation on the Constitution - Part 3 The Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society co-sponsored this discussion between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on December 5, 2006. The Justices engaged in an interesting and important discussion on the Constitution and their methods of interpretation. ABC Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated. Part 3 of 10
CAC President Explains the Arc of Constitutional Progress at Brookings Debate On July 18, 2011, the Brookings Institution hosted a debate between Constitutional Accountability Center President Doug Kendall and University of Chicago Law Professor Geof Stone on how progressives can take back the Constitution from conservatives. During the discussion, Kendall explained that our imperfect original Constitution has been made "more perfect" over time and that Americans should celebrate not only the original framers, but also the framers of the Reconstruction Era Amendments and other Amendments that have made our Constitution what it is today.
The Structure will always win
A Conversation on the Constitution - Part 8 The Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society co-sponsored this discussion between United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on December 5, 2006. The Justices engaged in an interesting and important discussion on the Constitution and their methods of interpretation. ABC Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg moderated. Part 8 of 10
mosesstill: mosesstill: Textualism, a system of rigid adherence to words, has largely captured the church.
ChicagoKentLaw: ChicagoKentLaw: RT @ChicagoKentAlum: PR: 1) JS dances between originalism and textualism. Doesn't think that we have clear text here. Focuses on the language of the takings.
ChicagoKentAlum: ChicagoKentAlum: PR: 1) JS dances between originalism and textualism. Doesn't think that we have clear text here. Focuses on the language of the takings.