Ames Moot Court Competition 2017
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 พ.ย. 2017
- The Ames Competition, held in the historic Ames Courtroom of Harvard Law School, is one of the most prestigious competitions for appellate brief writing and advocacy in the country. The students participating in the Final Round started the competition in fall of their 2L year. Two teams progressed to the Final Round through their strong research abilities and excellent written and oral advocacy.
This year’s case was Dylan Bloom v. United States of America. The presiding judges were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. '79, of the U.S. Supreme Court; Judge Debra Ann Livingston ’84 of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and Judge Carl E. Stewart of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The John Hart Ely Memorial Team (Petitioner)
David Beylik
Jason Ethridge (Oralist)
Jenya Godina
Isaac Park
David Phillips (Oralist)
Derek Reinbold
The Fred T. Korematsu Memorial Team (Respondent)
Frederick Ding (Oralist)
Vivian Dong
Henry Druschel
Lydia Lichlyter (Oralist)
Raeesa Munshi
William Schmidt
To view the history of the Ames Moot Court Competition, including decades of videos and info on past competitions, go to : hls.harvard.edu/ames-moot-court/
These students who can deliver well-constructed and articulate arguments in front of the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES have amazing futures in front of them.
Right?! One of them will end up as a private Advocate for a Supreme Court litigation firm or a Solicitor General and no doubt the Chief Justice will recognize the face even if he doesn't remember why, especially given how few advocates go before SCOTUS....I believe it is 1 MAYBE 2x the amount of cases they hear each year
@Almighty God George Soros #420 #GetRekd If you wanna sell your soul, yes!
One must do it no matter who is front of you
All these hacks will end up as lobbyists. Elite privileged punks.
Totally agree. I'm still watching and the second speaker pretty much just put three judges back in their lanes on one point. Super exciting!
The first guy said “I would push back on that characterization” to the Chief Justice of the United States.
That’s someone who is confident in his argument. Bravo.
Future...
Best case scenario is the Cheif Justice remembers your name/face and it gives you potential doors in the future. Worst case scenario it doesnt and he forgets you with no real consequence. Might as well go big and bold./
8
@@fabianloveslaw401 Its so funny because he became Roberts is law clerk this term😂
@@milessalley8871Is he? I looked it up and he currently doesn’t mention clerking for John Roberts on his lawfirm profile.
Me - afraid to talk with my normal professor in med school
These students - arguing in front of CHIEF JUSTICE OF USA
Even moreso- arguing WITH the Chief Justice of the US
I understand the words but not the sentences.
😂 priceless comment
me 2
I comprehend both the words and the sentences, But I do not understand them.
Every fucking moot video I go to there’s always some dumb ass commenting this exact comment.
Elite gobbledygook
I have the first round of moot court tryouts today. I’m so nervous. Can’t imagine doing this in front of the Chief Justice of the United States.
Jessica S how did it go?
Jessica S imagine them in the underpants
I would be happy to demonstrate in argument my perspective on a case because of the opportunities...
Have been waiting for this
Magistrate Judge accepting guilty plea in felony case (under Federal Magistrate Act) - - -
Even if the initial Magistrate decision accepting a guilty plea is with consent of the defendant
is a timely(?) motion to withdraw guilty plea a prima facie withdrawl of consent to find guilty?
(At the very least, such a motion would seem to raise a question about whether consent was truly voluntary.)
So, when is it "too late" to withdraw consent for a magistrate to perform adjudication?
This was brutal yet informative
YES! Been looking forward to this!
Are there briefs in PDF form for both sides? If so where
Well done Jason.
I'm going to go out on a limb here to guess that the "very compelling" dissent to which Roberts alludes at 29:13 was his own.
It's complicated. *rewinds & scratches head* It would be easier if I understood what is law. Very very good speakers. I'm wanna see all of them.
just amazing to realize again that human brain can perform so much like this.
It’s certainly be in my argument that they need to repaint that side of the podium because all hands have been touching it and so its paint has been fading.
But, Amazing lawyers!👏🏼
the facts of the case are important, not comparing one case to another
GREAT
Wow the best of the moot😲
Yes
despite the discrimination, it was a wonderful experience i was fully qualified for
Lowkey didn't hear him say your honour to Justice Debra...especially on the subject of women in the draft
i'd be scared to appear in front of john roberts.
it gets easier if you know what you are talking about.
Yevgeniy Zharinov amen
He doesn’t seem intimidating to me ... you see him asking fair questions but also giggling.
John Roberts is probably the single most intimidating person I have seen
@@jonalderson5571 More than Mike Tyson?
I feel that recently my coc has recently done a pretty good job of weighing my time at work with my parental obligations
How about ask them who or what case they want to represent
what is a "petitioners registration period"?
I do wonder if you can find Harvey Specter or Louis Litt sitting in the crowd.
Havard Law School, thanks for sharing this video. And congratulations to all who participated in the Ames Competition! The oral arguments are spectacular because it gives me an insight into all the hard work they put into their research, writings and many hours of practicing oral arguments and reciting what is required for the case which is the subject of the argument. Be that as it may, if anyone was paying close attention to not only the different perspective of the argument but the audience as well; if you look to the far right near the wall, you'll see a white in black holding a grayish object that appears to be an iPhone that he may, or may not had used to take a picture of the second male student making his argument. If you'd like to see, please fast forward the video, or rewind until you reach the time, "30:51." The purpose of my statement if I am not mistaking, I thought that taking pictures wasn't allowed during the arguments... If he was taking a picture, or not taking a picture.
i feel the judge is comparing what case he thinks is "more imortant than another case"
Amazing
The first guy got grilled by John Roberts so much
I feel like a lot of the students are using terms they read, but dont fully understand
f she was unsure of the dates and years, she should say so, so they can be reviewed at a later date
What kind of people are in the United States?
what is a "discreet violation"?
what does the judge mean a "better case"?
Stare Decisis : stand by decisions taken.
Am I correct?
First year law student here in South Africa.
Yes you are right
Correct. But the underpinnings of that doctrine are somewhat shaky when you begin to give them heightened scrutiny. You must listen to Dobbs v Jackson oral arguments. The conservative Justices really proved to me that this really has no standing. Alito and Clarence especially
Yes
in 2008-2009 i wanted to be a green Baret, as a female, but couldn't. in airborne school, it was about 2 females to every 250 males
yes, they should not alter what already exists......????
great knowledge
Korematsu.
why does she say "secondly" instead of "and"
She talks about dates and years, but doesn't say what those dates and years are
2:34 O YE O YE OYE
Leo *oyez
I think he doesn't fully understand what air defense artillery is
What’s fascinating is that while the court wanted to know the specific numbers of “slots” for combat roles, or when women could “serve” in combat; but that really irreverent in today’s military and war fighting theaters. Women by default serve in combat roles regardless of their combat role eligibility.
Unless it's actual combat. Not just sitting at a joystick or computer. I mean 99.9 percent of combat deaths continue to be male. Liberals love to play with definitions.
Ryan no one is playing with definitions. In theaters like Afghanistan and Iraq or most mordant warfare the idea of combat zones based on “battle lines” are simply not as easy to define. I personally know women who have been under fire even though they were not technically in a “combat zone.” That is the nature of today’s war fighting. There is also the idea that women cannot serve in specific roles because they are closed to them, but women are in fact doing those roles in theater but not being give the MOS designation.
As a veteran you are sorely mistaken as to what a combat role is. Your friend was certainly not infantry, certainly nothing related to direct combat. One can serve in a combat zone and still not be a combatant. Women by default are pampered in the military. Men an dwomen are held to two different physical fitness tests, the male's being much harder that the female's. Some women albeit very few have the capacity to withstand the rigors of true combat and frankly, even then I am hesitant to serve beside a woman in a combat role for a number of reasons but that is here nor there.
I'm am curious as to her MOS/AFSC and where she was deployed. For all we know she could have been finance and some outsider just decided to pop off a round.
Lord tell me i'm related to her so I can have an "in" to law school . . . haha
If one has not elected to be a United States citizen, nor has one resided on territory or other property owned by the United States.
Must one register for the draft?
just checked and immigrant non-US citizens are required to be registered as well...interesting
Since the United States has an all volunteer army, navy and air force, it is redundant and unnecessary to compel any citizen to register or submit his/her name to any office of governmental affairs.
It's so that when they need to make it mandatory, and not just volunteer, such as in a time of war, they're able to actually get it done.
I feel lie they "memorized" what the read which would be on the test, but they dont really "understand " what it means
Im in an crazy insanity 51/50.,IF,Only scooby1961 were here :/.
This kid is a genius.
which one?
All the people therein are adults.
Yevgeniy Zharinov 🙄
Declare Tejinder singh a legend
i did everything the men did
frederick ding stone cold
2nd petitioner guy should compete with Amanda, they could have a fair square 🤣
Reserve right of quarm
Mental objective weaker the in woman pramatoal role at to man at merge of catrical thinking at higher then a third of male role of combat
my question: if.bloom was so innocent, why'd he have to hire a bunch of uckin lawyers??
I dont think is a "need" of a percentage of women, its any woman who wants to register, can
what's going on with that baby?
most females never makes it past e4 spc in army
34:24: He compares Same sex marriage in the Church to smoking cigarette's. That it is legal for anyone over the age of 18 to purchase cigarette's, but you can't smoke inside the church. It should be the same for those whose been Practicing Christianity and baptized in the Faith. He believes their are some people who don't take the faith seriously and then theirs those who do. And for those who don't take the faith serious they are the ones who wants to ridicule the faith.
The Constitution of America since the days of long ago has always protecting Religious freedoms and Practices from outsiders (anti-Christians) and businesses.
I would never do moot
i have no idea what theyre saying or what im watching! it's like doing drugs without actually doing drugs but twice the hallucination. does anyone else know what theyre saying or talking about? just stringing together random words to make nonsensical sentences.
Just because it doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean they don’t know what they’re talking about. After all, they’re the best of the best at Harvard Law to speak in front of CJOTUS.
ADA compared to combat LOL
the fact that he thinks ada is combat makes it almost laughable
ada is not combat lol
age isnt even so much a consideration
Shes using alot of big words that dont actually mean anything
I wonder what it would be like if Ben Shapiro student presenting..hmmm
“Lets say hypothetically there are women in some hypothetical combat role for the sake of argument...”
Ding Dong the witches are dead
Professional candidate vs. Unprofessional judges
Unprofessional how? Because they speak more simplistically? Maybe they've understood already that speaking more eloquently doesn't help make one's argument more compelling
it seems to me, this is a violation of human rights, s women are human, and give birth to children and rear children
Nerds
What makes them nerds besides hard working students?
Boring