Judicial Decisions: Crash Course Government and Politics #22
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Today, Craig Benzine is going to dive into the factors that influence judicial decisions. As you may have noticed, the Supreme Court recently handed down some pretty big decisions on same-sex marriage (in Obergefell v Hodges) and the Affordable Care Act (in King v. Burwell). Now, it's important to remember that these decisions are not made in a vacuum, but influenced by the other branches of government, political affiliations, and past court decisions. We’re also talk about a judge’s judicial philosophy - that is their relative restraint or activism in making decisions on laws. Judicial restraint is often equated with conservatism, but as we’ll show you, this is not always the case.
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Support is provided by Voqal: www.voqal.org
All attributed images are licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 2.0
creativecommon...
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
I swear, TH-cam teaches me way more than actual school does.
Either do I.
As someone who studied politics in college, I greatly appreciate the eagle punches. Also, everything else.
+smartaleckcomedy
Courts have taken to stealing people's jewelry. The
difficulty is that statutes are easy to understand and everyone can save on
attorney fees by settling out of court. There is hardly reason to litigate. But
if a judge feels that the Law of the Land hinders her kickback and bribe potential
the Supreme Court comes up with court rules and local laws to exempt the judges
from the law. Stealing people's jewelry is one way to refund attorney fees to a
paying customer. The judge and attorney play tricks to get the poorer party to
pay attorney fees when they are exempt. Additionally, they want the wealthier
party to end up with something to make them feel it was worth while litigating
(I'm not sure it works). Any two attorneys can agree on anything according to
C.R.C.P 15(4) - so that is a full exemption from the law right there. An
attorney doesn't have to represent the party that hired them and can do
anything else instead. To avoid being fired the attorney asks for the
appointment of a guardian ad litem to the party. Then only the GAL can appeal -
and attorneys can only be dismissed in appeals. Now the guardian ad litem will
claim that the jewelry the party has - whether premarital, old gifts, not part
of the inheritance, family heirlooms or anything else - belongs to the
wealthier party and should be returned to them. The GAL doesn't know the couple
or the situation, but the judges don't uphold the standard of burden of proof
at all. In fact, when two attorneys agree on anything documentation becomes
inadmissible in court. So receipts or financial information won't help. Judges
have the wealthier party along with their own attorney and the guardian ad
litem enter the residence of the poorer party and steal social security cards,
I.D.s financial and medical information, gold, diamonds, gems, valuables, guns
(even from victims of domestic assaults) etc. In my case Judge Angela Arkin
declared the case closed so my husband doesn't pay my attorney fees. Then she
said that I can ask for a return of some of my stolen goods. Other victims to
the same scam told me that they ended up with a $20k attorney bill to the GAL -
they have hired her as an attorney without their knowledge. In Colorado there is no
need for a contract. Any attorney can "represent" any constituent in
any case -with or without their knowledge. Bankers, attorneys and doctors are
unregulated and in China
people get taken off the street, beaten up and incarcerated while judges and
attorneys take their real estate and gold and diamonds. Our system aims at the
same. Before handing in her emails, Clinton
opened many private prisons as a way of bribing the judges who will be looking
at her emails. She and Obama are about kickbacks on arms deals - for which they
bribe federal justices and others using tax money. The judicial branch is all about
laundering of moneys. There is no such thing as litigation at all. Please vote
NO to Judge Angela Arkin in 2016 and later in any county or state where she
pops up. Please write congress to disassemble the judicial branch. Replace with
state employee DORA regulated magistrates - no judges, no justices, no attorney
of record, no appointments. Separation of authorities. Save billions weekly and
your jewelry!!!
Sigal Stein You posted a long essay on youtube and tagged me in it...did you expect me to read it? Because I'm not going to. TLDR
Anyone else cramming for the AP gov exam?
April Sabor yes
yup
Thanks Crash Course for making the Government and Politics series for teaching us about our nation's laws. I feel knowing these law I will become a better citizen for our great country.
I'm going to have to strongly dispute the Thought Bubble segment on judicial activism and restraint.
First, it is difficult to come up with satisfactory definitions for the terms "activism" and "restraint" in this context; in fact, there's a good argument to be made that it might not be possible at all. The Thought Bubble segment didn't seem to appreciate this ambiguity. For example, what if the court's precedent clearly mandates striking down a law? If the court strikes down the law, is that activist because they overruled Congress or a state legislature, or is it restrained because they adhered closely to precedent? For an even more convoluted example, look at the debate between Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia in NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012). Roberts believed that he was acting in a more restrained fashion by construing the Affordable Care Act to be Constitutional, and striking down only those parts that he couldn't find any way to uphold. Scalia thought that Roberts was being activist, because through such a strained construction of the law, Roberts was effectively rewriting it.
Second, even to the degree that we can understand how "activism" is different from "restraint", its association with specifically liberal or specifically conservative justices is really non-existent. One can probably argue that the Warren court was an activist and a liberal court, but this hardly creates a general association between activism and liberalism. During the Lochner era, activism was strongly associated with conservatism, as the Supreme Court would aggressively use the due process clause to strike down economic regulation. Nowadays, the correlation continues to remain unclear; as was pointed out, conservatives are arguably activist for overturning Congressional legislation in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), especially when they'd recently upheld that legislation in McConnell v. FEC , 540 U.S. 93 (2003). And liberal justices are arguably restrained for sticking to the precedent of the Warren court in cases like Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), and Friedrichs v. California Teacher's Association ___ U.S. ___ (2016). Given the absence of correlation, it's not clear to me why a heuristic association was even suggested.
Third, it hardly makes historical sense to group the Burger and Warren courts together as alike in judicial philosophy. Though, especially during the early years of the Burger court, many of the liberal justices from the Warren court (like Brennan, Marshall, and Douglas) successfully upheld and extended some of the decisions of the Warren court, the Burger court very quickly started moving in the opposite direction. Decisions like Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) and Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974), from early on in the Burger court, overturned or limited precedents from the Warren court, and that trend only continued as time went on.
I recognize that a video educating people on the way that federal courts make decisions is going to have to touch on concepts like judicial activism and judicial restraint, as many people will view the behaviour of courts through those lenses. But to ascribe those terms to specific decisions or justices, and to do so with such generality, misleads more than it educates.
+Aviel Menter Yes
Aviel Menter - lots of food for thought, thanks
Every time Craig mentions the importance of Roe v. Wade, I grimace with my entire body. Very informative video, but also very depressing here in the pre-apocalyptic world of 2022.
Feeeeed me, feed my brain. I love it
Wait, not literally? (puts away bone saw)
Crystalvampire66 we can make it literal *takes out bone saw*
Joey Fogarty **Evil laugh**
Did someone say BONE SAW!!??!! Don't waste my time if you didn't... Cuz I only got THREE MINUTES, THREE MINUTES OF PLAY TIME!!
Love that Jon Stewart was in the recommended videos when you show the screen shot.
1:22 I love their interpretation of Trump
Just got my AP scores and am happy to say even with the series not even complete it allowed me to get a 5!
Why didn't this video come out on time last week CrashCourse
1:23 that illustration of Trump is on point!
I noticed it too! How did they know?
Wow, I'm so surprised that these videos don't get more views.
Did anyone else feel the need to play this video at 0.75 speed?
Right!!! He is talking so fast .....
thanks for saving my grade omg
Huh, I didn't know Hrrgrp won the 2016 election.
Ah, Souter. Also, how funny when Earl Warren gave sweeping changes when they were appointed by Eisenhower.
davidkimlive Eisenhower was a very liberal president.
I like the concept of originalism because it seems logical to me that if any other view of the Constitution is valid, said view could be derived by looking at the Constitution from an originalist perspective.
For example, if you can prove the Constitution's writers and ratifiers intended for judicial pragmatism to be used, then judicial pragmatism is the correct lens through which the Constitution should be viewed.
Otherwise, the Constitution's meaning is a bit more precise than judicial pragmatism suggests.
I just got the script for this episode as one of the project for awesome perks. I loved rewatching it and following along with the script. Thank you!
How did you get it? 😇
Fantastic! Marvelous! Carry on, Wheezy! Bravo!
Uncanny level of accuracy on what is on the sidebar when they show you the video in itself at 1:53.
1:23 That's such an accurate picture of Trump, I can't believe Thought Bubble predicted our next president over a year before the elections
How did they Know ?
yep
seems about right
pretty legit.
OMG they can predict the future!
So did John Green-he refers to the surprising result of the 2016 election in the last US History video.
Most important thing I gleaned from watching this video. Learning what 'stare desicis' meant.... well I googled it afterwards.
+Joshua Walters
Combining the courts seems like a good idea on the surface -
have district and county courts interact so a judge becomes knowledgeable about
a case. In practice it is one more way for the judicial branch to avoid
separation of authorities. Judge Angela Arkin in district court prevented me
from accessing the judicial system through misconduct, thereby denying me civil
protection. At the same time county court prevented me from entering the
courtroom while sealing a case, allowing my husband to deny the domestic
assault of 10/11/13. Judge Arkin timed an unrecorded hearing to appoint a GAL
right on time for the sealing of the case. Then on 7/16/15 she held what she
dabbed "Permanent Orders Hearing". She closed the case so our
marriage doesn't make it into its fifth year - and also to prevent my husband
from paying my attorney fees. At the same time she generated actions for three
months so that the deadline for the statute of limitation for damages on the
domestic assault expires two years after the assault. She issued a fraudulent
warrant for my arrest on 7/28/15 for failure to show up to a hearing - no
hearings were scheduled, I didn't miss any hearings and jurisdiction was with
the Court of Appeals. I requested the Court of Appeals for automatic reversals
of all rulings in the case as all of them - since Judge Arkin intervened in May
of 2014 - constitute misconduct and all hearings are partially recorded. I also
requested to extend the statute of limitations on damage law suits against my
husband due to the domestic assault. I have the medical documents and I was
taking District Court to appeals so I was not going to need an attorney and was
right on the money in terms of the law. The police arrested me on 7/1/15. They
knew the warrant was fraudulent by court's clerks are supervised by chief
judges of a judicial district and are expected to endorse fraudulent documents.
The judge didn't see me until 7/7/15 - a day after my deadline for submitting
my Response to Order to Show Cause in appeals. While I was incarcerated Judge
Angela Arkin had the GAL get a locksmith and break into my residence and steal
my social security card, I.D.s, financial and medical documents, titles, etc.
If I were to appeal or file a damage law suit against my husband the GAL,
Virginia Fraser Able, would make a fraudulent claim that she has power of
attorney and I wouldn't be able to litigate pro-se. Virginia Fraser Able would
botch any litigation. I enjoyed maintenance and residence in the marital home
because Magistrate Moss did my Temporary Orders hearing. It was a problem for
Judge Angela Arkin as she couldn't overrule another judge at the time. Now I
hear that the attorneys ask to skip Magistrate Moss and go directly to Judge
Angela Arkin for all hearings. Please ask congress to disassemble the judicial
branch - it is independent, self regulating and out of control. Your tax money
is used to appoint guardian ad litem to every family and probate case. The
judge then removes the party and orders the unentitled party to pay the same
fees a second time - likely for her own share. Also, the judge created three
months of "activity" on the "closed" case by suggesting
that I request a return of some of my stolen property (gun, gold, diamonds,
gems, silver, anything that is part of a set, anything that is new, etc.). Parties
who have asked for their stolen property back were hit with a $20k bill for the
GAL - now suddenly their attorney through fraudulent "power of
attorney." I didn't get half of the marital home, or half of the marital
estate or damages - the judge and attorneys got that instead of me. This is how
hunger and poverty are created - as most men assault their wives right after
filing for divorce and after they have had a new born or got pregnant. Let me
just interject that friends who were represented by an attorney did a lot, lot,
lot worse then me despite all appearances to the opposite. I gave Judge Arkin a
run for her bribes. Also, in county court hearings weren't recorded and a good
DA asked to be dismissed as soon as I presented documentation of my injuries. A
corrupt one took over and told me to come back next time I get assaulted... My
husband's case was purposely delayed until after I filled out a survey about
the judge.... Please write congress to disassemble the judicial branch - if you
are an employer, landlord or neighbor they will get a ride at your expense too.
If you are a tax payer they already have - save billions weekly on their
fraudulent appointments.
Is it Legal Advice?
I'm a lay person and I don't give legal advice. All I can tell you is that the Supreme Court
changes the law weekly to respond to constituents trying to uphold their legal rights. If the statutes and constitution were upheld people would settle out of court or they would go pro-se. The law is easy and simple. I read the West Law Practice Series - a book costs as much as one hour of "consultation" with an attorney. The attorney to the entitled party typically stays quiet and tries to sell her out based on whatever the judge and the attorney to the wealthier party decides. I wouldn't hire an attorney unless they communicated with me very clearly. Bonnie Shields did. She was hired unbundled but entered general representation anyway. I later read at the LexisNexis Introduction to the Rules of Professional Conduct that attorneys can do that. They don't have to represent the party's interests and any two attorneys can agree on anything - regarding of the law - based on C.R.C.P 15(4). I was told that I can read this rule in any state if I replace the C for Colorado with the first letter of their state. Based on what I hear attorneys will persecute an innocent party that consulted with them in a position of an Attorney of Record. When I had an Attorney of Record I couldn't communicate with the court at all - only them. They misrepresented the case so I learned how to file an Appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals and that allowed me to file a copy with my case in District Court. Magistrate Moss would have fired my attorney based on the constitution - it makes sense that if I'm a party that I can represent my own interests in a case, right? But the two attorneys agreed to move the case to Judge Angela Arkin's court - because she practices misconduct. I therefore designated her as the Appellee in an appeal. She then put me in jail illegally and had an attorney hire a locksmith and break into my house. You could see it in the Register of Action for Douglas County, CO case 13DR30128, but the judge declared it confidential. The attorney stole my social security card, Xeroxes of I.D.s, passport photos, financial and medical information, titles, etc. If I tried appealing again someone would have claimed that I gave them power of attorney. They would have hijacked the litigation so that the public doesn't realize what's going on. If I file my own documents the public gets to look at them and study the law. I would have also become homeless due to attorney bills. The Supreme Court changes the law weekly but I'm giving out copies of my outdated appeals to anyone. Ask me for a copy, they are free. Please write congress to disassemble the independent judicial branch. Replace with supervised magistrates. No judge, no justices, no attorney of record. Separation of authorities. Everything the judges and attorneys hate! And please vote NO to Judge Angela Arkin in 2016 if you are a taxpayer - she appoints everything state funded just for kickbacks.
The URL at 1:54
Not sure how I feel about Justice Ginsberg blinking, but I think I like it
loved the reference at 7:14
Craig for President!!!
Is there a difference between the term "Judge" and "Justice"?
Judges are in the lower courts, justices are in the Supreme Court.
That side bad in the video is spot on for me. How did that happen?
and then there is kavanaugh
IMPORTANT QUESTION!
How many more videos were you guys planning to make?!
They portray President Donald Trump so accurately at 1:23
Intriguingly Informative :). I will now ACE all of my AP NSL tests!
Does anybody have any idea what going on with the free to download promise since I don't have there patron feed?
All of the presenters are doing a great job but i really miss john green
Thanks Craig!
"Hi im creg" luv that one
XD
I wonder if there were ever any DADA'ist Supreme Court Judges?? I mean Jimmy Fallon promotes it with his new book DADA.
twelge15 defense against the dark arts?
How come corruption and bribery are never mentioned as factors that affect judicial decisions?
I just don't understand if the judicial branch is supposed to be a check and balance for executive and legislative branch, then why is it the president chooses the justices and congress confirms them, doesn't that take away the check and balance purpose?
No wonder the Eagle is always a pain to Craig. He's getting stiffed millions of dollars from American Eagle >:(
Party Animal RBG!!!! I love her so much
We need John Green......ASAP!
The casual zingers at conservatives are real.
You should do crash course for European history!!!
What do u think of the recent Supreme Court decisions about obamacare and gay marriage? I think they're on a roll!!
make a vidieo about expository writing
Wait a minute... At 4:40 you got that kind of backwards.
***** No, I believe that is correct.
There are 5 conservatives and 4 liberals yes, but when he said "4 liberals", it highlighted the 5 conservatives, and vice versa. Also used blue for the conservatives and red for the liberals.
***** I see what you mean, but it's the other way around. They weren't highlighted, they were greyed out. The ones he was talking about were retaining their natural skin color.
1:52 WTF SO TRIPPY!!!!!
Language
I seen, Judicial Decision: crash course Government and politics # 22
where's one of the green brothers?
I've never really like the absolutist judicial restraint of 'strict constructivism', which is practiced by Scalia and refuses to use anything but the black ink of the text of laws, and ignores all records of congressional debate, context or impact, when considering a case. It seems too robotic.
I'd really like to watch those crash courses but i'm canadian and I'm not much interrested into US politics :(
I'm not an attorney & don't give legal advice. In fact, there is no such thing as legal advice as the Supreme Court revises the law weekly to ensure higher litigation costs. One of my mistakes was not checking my Register of Action weekly or daily. The Register of Action reveals all activities related to the case, with the exclusion of the judge's lunch with the other attorney & their future plans.
Bonnie Shields entered general representation and became an Attorney of Record on my case without my knowledge. Going to the File Retrieval window at the courthouse and asking for a free Register of Action with Minute Orders would have revealed that timely. Perhaps I could have gotten a civil protection order by asking for a timely dismissal.
I replaced her with Robert Wolf who claimed that he has to scan his pleadings and mail them to me weeks and months too late - when in reality he was e-filing. He also didn't tell me that Bonnie Shields was fired and that I could go pro-se as I wanted instead of hiring him to replace Shields. Robert Wolf wrote an illegal contract, giving him absolute power. I could only get him dismissed from my case upon appeal. He tried to get my husband back into the marital home by claiming that there is damage to the home. Although I got affidavits from neighbors testifying to the opposite I couldn't communicate with the courts because I had an Attorney of Record on file. The only filing I could do myself was a Request to Accept Attorney's Withdrawal. But the attorneys wanted to transfer the case from Magistrate Moss to Judge Angela Arkin, who agreed to a bribe scheme. The other party said they wanted Robert Wolf on the case and Arkin agreed.
The Register of Action should be available to all parties automatically and electronically. But the judicial branch is independent and does its best to keep its practices away from the public eye. Pro-se parties should be able to file pleadings with the clerk electronically. But destroying forests is the least of what these sociopaths-to-the-extreme are doing in order to make money faster.
Members of the judiciary on lower courts aren't lower court justices they are judges.
Wait we're on #22?
4:40 Try that again.
I rewatched this clip like 5 times to figure out what was going on
@@kaylinli So did I. I don't know why I said that. I can't see anything wrong with it. I must have posted this comment on the wrong video haha. Oh well.
@@CupidFromKentucky Oh I thought the problem was they got the 5 conservative justices and 4 liberal justices wrong
Is his name Pinocchio? "I wanna be a real eagle!"
I think the judges are mislabeled for their political sides
4:45
Ducky Trask No, I believe they are labeled correctly.
So what's Thomas's reasoning for never commenting ever?
***** You put it much more diplomatically than I would have, lol.
***** Neither am I, hahaha
TheJaredtheJaredlong I asked him once this is what he said. "No comment."
The tour at the Supreme Court mentioned that it's part of him being a 'Southern Gentleman'.
TheJaredtheJaredlong He doesn't contribute to the spectacle. The Justices have already read all the briefs, done their homework and know how they will vote. The oral arguments are for show in an attempt to justify their decision.
well one of the videos on their list was game theory..... COINCIDENCE, I THINK NOT!!
In this video, the president after Obama, was a monster. How did they know? 😂
Dare I say it, you changed the quote!
Decision to end video was political, to avoid speaking politics is political.
I expected at least one joke concerning Judge Dredd.
Most people don't work in offices Craig. They don't. Do you think offices grow on trees? Is there an office grove somewhere out there? Somewhere...?
***** I think we call the office groves cities.
Abraxian Absolution Then we need to water the cities so the office groves produce big juicy offices lol
Actually, a president is legally able to serve up to 10 years. Not 8 years as he said
That's not in the Constitution my guy.
Craig should wear purple...that way we won't know which way he swings politically..
red+blue = purple yeeey
The Honest Blogger! well, it's crash course + pbs, so blue
Patrick 'Honest Blogger' Allen Main Channel is sooo good and w I don’t know if I qw was the day I wanna was a good day I wanna
I want Craig to bear our strange babies.
wow under 301 club what do i get
Hmmm
if this series was on the government and political system in the UK it might have further codified our constitution and these videos, joke and all, would actually be apart of the British Constitution and become law!!
How?
Why does this system have to be so dualistic? The world of (political) thought is more than just a scale of conservative to liberal. Manichaeans...
SupasaskaTV Because we've set up a system that encourages binary political though.
SupasaskaTV that was exactly what i was thinking... i want a system where we vote on issues, the politicians should have a corresponding modus that determines who stands for what the people are in favor of, this should also determine the legislative agenda
SupasaskaTV I think first-past-the-post (nought but first preference votes) elections is a big encourager of political support to become dualistic.
5th!
Dat Jon Stewart doe
The balding looks good on him.
Doesnt this guy have a TH-cam channel having to do something with his beard???
Bring back John green!
Isn't it possible for someone to be president for a max of 10 Years..
If the vice president takes office after an assassination of the president, don't they hold office for 2 years, and then can run for president for 2 full terms thus being president for 10 years?
This guy is quick to elaborate shortcomings in affordable care act and then have zero comments about citizens united? hmmm
A president can serve for a maximum of 10 years. Just sayin.
Avidman42 I thought it was 11, but I dont see how it matters
Can't president serve up to 10 years not 8??
Fun fact: Justice John Roberts has never heard of the concept of abortion
Bruh
Scalia the liberal?
exactly what I thought when I saw that lmao. RIP Scalia
+Viktor6665 explain.
first!
Booya Oh yeah well I'm (negative) -1st.
Mike Hawk technically I'm -2nd by this pattern
***** No, but you are welcome to use complex numbers. Care to be ith?
why are you talking so fasttt? im losing my mind trying to keep up its so annoying
YAAASS 43RD VEIW AND 3RD LIKE
too fast, pls slower
Can you please talk slower on your videos?
Bruh
Bruh
Bruh
Bruh
Bruh
Bruh
Bruh
Bruh