Fox News Hypocrisy Exposed

Special Promotion: http://www.netflix.com/tyt

New TYT Facebook Page(!): http://www.facebook.com/tytnation

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/theyoungturks

TYT Network (new WTF?! channel): http://www.youtube.com/user/whattheflickshow

Check Out TYT Interviews http://www.youtube.com/user/TYTInterviews

Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com

Duration : 0:4:17

Read more about Fox News Hypocrisy Exposed

The Librarians Who Battled the Patriot Act – David Goodman

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/04/14/Amy_and_David_Goodman_Standing_Up_to_the_Madness

Mother Jones journalist David Goodman tells the story of four Connecticut librarians who were ordered by the FBI to release library records under the Patriot Act. After filing suit against the Attorney General to challenge the order, the librarians eventually won the case.

—–

The longtime host of the award-winning Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman has steadfastly covered grassroots activism, the political process, and government accountability. She has co-authored many books with her brother and fellow journalist, David Goodman.

Their collaborations include investigations into the mercenary aspects of war, media culpability, freedom of information, and international human rights, and seek not only to expose endemic corruption, but also to affect change.

Their bestselling book, The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them, examines the full political spectrum, from The Washington Post to Bill Clinton, in an effort to bring genuine accountability into public discourse. The Goodmans’ latest project is Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times. Standing Up to the Madness celebrates grassroots activists across America and the power of the individual to bring change on a local and national level. – City Arts and Lectures

David Goodman is a contributing writer for Mother Jones. and co-author of Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders and the People Who Fight Back.

Duration : 0:9:31

Read more about The Librarians Who Battled the Patriot Act – David Goodman

US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: A Presentation on International Law

The Blum Center for Developing Economies Presents:

“International Law”

A presentation by US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, followed by a conversation with Dean Christopher Edley, UC Berkeley School of Law.

Stephen Breyer, born in San Francisco in 1938, is a graduate of Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard Law School. He taught law for many years at Harvard and has also worked as a Supreme Court law clerk, a Justice Department lawyer, an Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutor, and Chief Counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1990 he was appointed an appellate court judge by President Carter. In 1994 he was appointed a Supreme Court Justice by President Clinton.

Sponsors: Blum Center for Developing Economies, International House

Landing


http://ihouse.berkeley.edu/

Duration : 1:1:42

Read more about US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: A Presentation on International Law

From House of Lords to Supreme Court

From 31 July 2009, the judicial function of the House of Lords and its role as the final – and highest – appeal court in the UK will end, bringing about a fundamental change to the work and role of the House of Lords.

A new United Kingdom Supreme Court, separating the judicial function from Parliament (those who make the law from those who interpret it in courts), will open in early October 2009 opposite the Houses of Parliament in Parliament Square – formerly the Middlesex Guildhall.

Lord Mance, one of the 12 Law Lords in the House of Lords, outlines the key changes to the judicial role of Parliament.

Find out more:
House of Lords homepage: http://www.parliament.uk/lords
Judicial Work: http://www.parliament.uk/business/judicial_work.cfm

Duration : 0:4:41

Read more about From House of Lords to Supreme Court

Fox News Murderabilia Stories Mislead Viewers?

100+ MORE examples of Fox News Bias at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

Even though Fox News ran several stories about the “‘Stop the Sale of Murderabilia to Protect the Dignity of Crime Victims Act of 2010” last Friday, none of the stories accurately informed viewers about either the scope of this proposed “murderabilia” law or the source of its likely potential legal challenges as I show in this video.

The Fox News clips I use in this video come from segments on the supposed straight news programs “America’s Newsroom,” “America Live” and “Special Report,” all broadcast on June 18, 2010, with the 3 segments from which I took my clips available at the following 3 links:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4245781/murderabilia-controversy

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4245088/lawmakers-want-crackdown-on-murderabilia

The image I show of the text of the “‘Stop the Sale of Murderabilia to Protect the Dignity of Crime Victims Act of 2010” cosponsored in the US Senate as S.3468 by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3468/text

And, finally, the image I use of the Supreme Court case overturning NY’s “Son of Sam” law, Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991), is from http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/502/105.pdf

Duration : 0:5:14

Read more about Fox News Murderabilia Stories Mislead Viewers?

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Follow us on Twitter – twitter.com/verumserum. Visit us at www.verumserum.com.

Duration : 0:0:35

Read more about Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Reclaiming Your Sovereign Citizenship 6 of 17

And this is from 1995 folks. Give this Johnny some credit.

Duration : 0:6:31

Read more about Reclaiming Your Sovereign Citizenship 6 of 17

Brad Bannon on Supreme Court back in session

Scott interviews Washington DC political strategist Brad Bannon

(Huffington Post)

First Amendment cases top the Supreme Court’s docket as it begins a new term with a new justice and three women on the bench for the first time.

The court will look at provocative anti-gay protests at military funerals and a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children. These cases worry free speech advocates, who fear the court could limit First Amendment freedoms.

The funeral protest lawsuit, over signs praising American war deaths, “is one of those cases that tests our commitment to the First Amendment,” said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Another case involves a different aspect of the First Amendment, the government’s relationship to religion. The justices will decide whether Arizona’s income tax credit scholarship program, in essence, directs state money to religious schools in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
More at http://lbnnews.com

Duration : 0:10:32

Read more about Brad Bannon on Supreme Court back in session

Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

Q:To what extent did public and political opinion in the west undermine the impartiality of judicial decision-making during the cold-war era?
—————————————-

USA

In a famous dissent, Justice Douglas of the US Supreme Court declared:

‘We have deemed it more costly to liberty to suppress despised minorities than to let them vent their spleen’ (Dennis v United States U.S. 494 at p. 585 (1951) (U.S.S.C.).

No western democracy has practiced the tolerance exposed [mistake in video, it should read “expoused”] by Justice Douglas-in the above statement, without at some stage censoring unpopular organizations. Douglas was in a minority of two on a US Supreme Court bench which upheld convictions entered against Communist party sympathizers for conspiring to overthrow the US government. (Joseph, P,think it’s “1998” edn., Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, ).

In Dennis v United States, above, the US Supreme Court upheld convictions against communist party officials for conspiring to teach or advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence. Here, the Court considered that the advocacy of the communist doctrine was to be equated with conspiring to forcibly overthrow the US government.

Dennis was decided in 1951, at the height of cold-war tensions between the USSR and the US. Justice Black aligned with Justice Douglas in the minority stating:

‘Public opinion being what it is now, few will protest the conviction of these Communist petitioners. There is hope, however, that in calmer times, when present pressures, passions, and fears subside, this or some other later court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high place where they belong in a free society.’ (Dennis, supra, at 581).

Justice Black’s statement was realized six years later in Yates v United States 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (U.S.S.C). This time, a differently constituted Supreme Court bench quashed the convictions of 14 Communist Party leaders that had been entered for similar reasons under the same Act.

With the easing of east-west relations, the Court drew a clear distinction between the advocacy of forcible overthrow of government-as an abstract doctrine, and the advocacy of action to achieve that result.

According to legal philosopher Wolfgang Friedman, it was impossible to remove the judgment of the US Supreme Court from the political tensions and public opinions that existed at that time. (W. Friedman, Legal Theory, (4th edn. , 1960, at p.95).

Australia

Australia also expressed abhorrence at communist doctrine during the post-war era. In Burns v Ransley (1949) 79 C.L.R. 101 (H.C.), the Australian High Court upheld a conviction for sedition entered against a communist speaker who, when asked, announced that, in the event of a war, he would fight on the side of the Soviet Union. He was convicted for words he had spoken in reply to a hypothetical question, and not for inciting mutiny or violence.

The following year the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) declared the Australian Communist Party to be a revolutionary organization which jeopardized the defence of the Commonwealth. The statute dissolved the Communist Party and all affiliated organizations declared illegal under the Act.

The fundamental democratic principle of freedom of expression was restored when a majority of the High Court of Australia in Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, declared the Communist Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) to be unconstitutional and beyond the defence powers of the Commonwealth (see also R v Sharky (1949) 79 CLR 121).

New Zealand

During the early 1980s in New Zealand, Priminister Robert Muldoon took exception to the Socialist Unity Party and questioned it’s right to exist in a free and democratic society. However, a government, expounding the rule of law, must demonstrate greater justification for out-lawing a particular group or organization, for reasons other than personal enmity (Joseph, supra, at p.191).

See also New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s.14 (right to freedom of expression), and related case law; and Human Rights Act 1993, s.21(j)(prohibits discrimination on grounds of political opinion) incorporated, by reference, into s.19 NZBORA; note also- Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007; & see Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981, s.11 (offences involving New Zealand flag)

Duration : 0:4:20

Read more about Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

THE SUPREME COURT | Episode 1 Excerpt | PBS

“The key lesson of Marbury vs. Madison is: Don’t give important documents to your brother.” –Ernest A. Young, University of Texas at Austin Check out this preview of The Supreme Court airing on PBS January 31, 2007 (check local listings). Episode 1: One Nation Under Law examines the creation of the court and follows it through the brink of the Civil War, paying particular attention to the fourth chief justice of the Supreme Court — John Marshall — and to his successor, Roger Taney … PBS …

Duration : 0:3:32

Read more about THE SUPREME COURT | Episode 1 Excerpt | PBS