Dec
13
- Supreme Court Historical Society host the National Heritage Lecture reenactments’ solicitor generals work away from specific cases 1870 congress authorized in performance of the Supreme Court Chief Justices asks if its possible to describe an ordinary day you have them speaking in a public role of an enormous amount of work in the courts in oral argument to sift through the cases that will have impact across the country to assist the Attorney General since 1879 political dimension in matters of national security civil justice over a century ago Kenneth Starr, Drew Days, Kenneth Geller and Paul Clement conflict resolution and ”’facial-gestalt-archetypes”’ in divisions of govt. and closure and coming to the view that the decision should be that of the US on cases lost in lower courts He explains the preferred means of presenting the case historically from the view point (1879) and cites the cases a attorney litigant could use to present the case to the court where a prior solicitor general changes position to the courts decision at a prior point in time where the Federal Govt. may not be directly involved He tells a brief story about how ridiculous the laws can be that come before the Solicitor General and respect for Agencies that can have a negative impact of individuals taking dangerous positions on Natural Law over the Rule of Law in the more legal realm as informed to the Attorney General (on abortions or assisted suicide or death penalty) calls for prudence and caution with the need to solve the issues in sensitive areas and writes or relays some information about it that is something helpful to the courts in the interest of the United States and the rights of the States.
-
If we hide our collective heads in the sand the promise of flowers tripples the tongues needed to scratch our heads.
There are excerpts about the 1870s history that have been removed from this issue vs. c-span Hawaii Saturday Dec.12 evening and there is a splice in the video @ 60:10 that shows that congruent attribution to the dialogue in that area of the video that ruins the case for the prior solicitor generals in question changing position to the courts decision at a prior point in time.
