May I just point out that I live in a village of 897. We have a war memorial of 57 dead. These are heroes of WW1, in my neighbouring village they have a war memorial of 95 dead out 703 at the time. These are true massacres of people. Each of my neighbouring villages would have been happy with these losses. Villages, bear that in mind, not a country. 2,000 villages throughout Britain cry more than this.
Interesantísima intervención, muchas gracias por subirla. Agradecería que subieran una versión subtitulada al español para que puedan escucharla quienes no dominan el idioma inglés.
Nury is so great, thank you for shedding a bright light on brutality Xi Jinping and his government had been perpetuating on Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples, God bless Uyghurs and their homeland!
As a concerned person and a coach who desires the best for children, the court has opened a can of worms with the NIL circumstances, now with High School affiliations allowing NIL deals what will be the complexities and right to work as a minor who receives the money. Ect...
Claim 3, i will use this point to highlight the error Alito is making in his line of reasoning. Freedom of religion or religous liberty are seperate from the actual intitution of religion. Each religion considers itself as,the truth and therefor rejects the tenants of other religions. Religous liberty is that concept that allows every individual in a society to choose their spiritual beliefs, to prevent persecution by members of one religion upon another and to keep tranquility in society. Alito mentions the persecution of Moormans, Jews and Catholics. The important part that he failed to mention is each of those groups was discriminated against by Christians. That is the effect of allowing a religous dominance, in place of religous liberty. If Christianity is promoted in government and public areas, it will prevent the freedom of religion protection upon non christians. This isnt a concept that is extremely hard to grasp. Freedom of conscious is a Constitutional right. No one can infringe on your right. This isnt what Alito is promoting. He is promoting religous dominance by one faith over all others. This is the exact opposite of what has protected our religous freedom for all this time and violates the Constitution. Freedom of religion cannot exist without freedom from religion.
Claim 2. Much good is done by religous people in society. True. Millionas of good people are,also people of faith. However some of the most heinous crimes even in modern times involved people of faith as well. Good people exist within religion, and bad people as well.
Claim 1, the men and women of the abolition movement were religous. True. Almost all the slaveholders were as well and use the Bible to justify the owning of slaves. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery denounced.
Religous liberty is meant to protect each persons personal right to choose their own spiritual beliefs and participate in that faith. It is a shield for protection. Alito has converted that shield to a sword. A sword to lead a crusade that weaponizes religous liberty as a,tool to grant favor and power to Christians and force that dogma into our common law. The founders saw the destruction religion does to a government based on democratic principles and personal freedoms. They would be in opposition of Alito's religous war on the Constitution. Persecution of Christians does not exist in America. It is actually the most obsurd assertion one could put forth, even worse that an actual justice of SCOTUS is claiming this. Lends me to question his actual mental health. Religous liberty is worth protecting. It is hard to protect it from a SUPREME court determined to destroy actual religous liberty for all Americans, not just Christians . Alito asks do those things held sacred by others deserve to be seen as valuable as my sacred beliefs, nope. The hypothetical he put forth, of course each has the right to wear religous dress. The right and the action do not inany way force support of religion on other persons. That isnt the question in the cases being used to redefine religous liberty. I am actually offended that the justices involved in this obvious abuse see the American public as unable to identify their agenda and intent. When you step out into society you are free to live according to your beliefs, not to place all society under your religous dogma. Justice Alito we are not coming for your rights, we are coming for your priveledge.
A basic question to understand the moral compass of any human on this channel. If you had a man who without a doubt held knowledge that will save nine hundred inocent live's, and one hundred criminals, and the time you have left to save them is three days. He won't speak to detainment, and threats. Do you consider torture being a moral act if for certain he will confess the information he holds? Also you study law, but have you taken to studying terrorism?
Hopefully I will be there next Fall by God’s grace. Great video especially someone who would be entering Notre Dame Law from an HBCU,representation matters.
This absolutely slaps. I cannot be more proud of Alito after these past three years. He has not stopped defending religious Americans from discrimination, regardless of their standing as a majority or minorities.
It is a sin to say Jesus is fallible because he is not fallible. It is clear as you read through the scriptures that he had done no wrong ever not a single wrong and everything he said was truthful. It is also impossible for him to be wrong because he is God and He cannot lie. As a believer in Christ I lovingly and kindly ask that you believe only what is written in the scriptures which is the truth. I love you as a neighbor and I do not want you believing lies about God. I also kindly with sincerity of heart ask that you repent of your Idolatry of humanity. The scriptures clearly state that humanity is born sinful and under the wrath of God and we need to receive God's mercy and lovingkindess by believing in Christ in order to be forgiven of our sins. 2 Corinthians 5:21 Amplified Bible He made Christ who knew no sin to [judicially] be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we would become the righteousness of God [that is, we would be made acceptable to Him and placed in a right relationship with Him by His gracious lovingkindness].
an important and beautiful conversation! ... also, it's hard not to mention. it's unbelievable the amount of server activity at this event. It's comically over-the-top. Each person present has their own individual server. It's like West and George are having a conversation on the far side of a performance art piece called "delivering lunch".
I was interested in seeing how the NDLS would put on an interview with Marcus Freeman. Then I heard the introduction for "Marcus" and thought that somehow the title writer had confused Marcus Cole and Marcus Freeman! I had to run a bit along before I realized that Dean Marcus Cole was going to introduce Marcus Freeman. p.s. Dad would have absolutely loved Marcus Cole. :)
Professor Bray's comments about not viewing justices as partisan actors strikes me as either naive or dishonest. First off, the confirmation of justices has become increasingly partisan. While the current justices appointed by Democratic Presidents were confirmed on mostly bipartisan grounds (Breyer 87-9 , Sotomayor 68-31 , Kagan 63-37 ), of the sitting justices appointed by Republican Presidents, only one can claim bipartisan support (Roberts 78-22). The rest (Thomas 52-48, Alito 58-42, Gorsuch 54-45, Kavanaugh 50-48, Barret 52-48) have received no votes from the opposing party at all! Now whether that's because Republican Presidents appointed justices that harbor increasingly partisan views, or the Democrats refuse to confirm perfectly qualified justices, it seems unreasonable to argue that you have a Supreme Court populated by entirely by non-partisan actors. The confirmation process clearly shows that the Senate believes these are partisan justices. And that's not even taking into account the frequency with which justices align with outcomes preferred by the party of the President by whom they were appointed. If you want the Supreme Court justices to appear non-partisan, maybe you should select justices who have bi-partisan support.
Mr. Bray, the Federalist Society and the conservative legal movement have conducted a decades long campaign to capture the supreme court. Based on their narrow range of legal theory, they will now dictate to the rest of us what kind of rights and governance we are allowed. And of course they are certain of their own rectitude, as conservatives tend to be. You say that you are not naive, please don't expect those of us on the other side to be.
