Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: What Really Won the Trillion-Dollar Supreme Court Case | Neal Kumar Katyal | TED

There is a mahogany podium at the Supreme Court of the United States.

⏸ Tạm dừng

Tốc độ:

204 câu

Nếu các câu quá ngắn hoặc quá dài, hãy bấm Edit để chỉnh sửa.

There is a mahogany podium at the Supreme Court of the United States.

One person died there, mid-argument, a stroke.

Another collapsed there, dying soon thereafter.

That's the podium.

It also happens to be where I practice law.

The most powerful court on earth.

Nine minds ready to attack -- and you stand 10 feet away from them.

There are no prepared speeches in this court.

Instead, 50 questions thrown at you in 30 minutes.

I'm making hundreds of decisions in real time.

Every argument I choose to make or not make, every word, every pause, every tone.

There are no rewinds.

Flinch and the justices pounce.

That's my courtroom.

But each of you has something like that.

A place in which words matter.

The right words can win and the wrong words [make a] huge difference.

Five months ago, I stood before that podium asking the Supreme Court to do something it had never done in its history: declare a president’s four-trillion-dollar signature initiative unconstitutional.

(Applause) And I had a secret.

April 2, 2025.

The president dusts off a 1977 law and imposes tariffs on virtually every country on earth.

No congressional vote -- nothing like that whatsoever -- just his word.

And here’s what’s at stake: if the president can command the global economy by yelling emergency, what can't he do?

Checks and balances don't just bend, they break.

I was hired to kill it.

Legal scholars, commentators [and] my own colleagues said it was impossible.

They said the president has nominated three of the justices on the court, and three others were appointed by Republican presidents.

They're not going to go against their president, they said.

I thought that was wrong.

But the real problem was that the Supreme Court never in its history, in 237 years, has declared a signature initiative of the president unconstitutional.

I was hired to do what no lawyer had done in 237 years.

My first thought?

"Hell, yes." (Laughter) My second thought?

“What in the world is wrong with me?” People have died at that podium, and I'm about to tell the world's most powerful man he can't do what he just did?" I had the self-preservation instincts of a moth near a bug zapper.

(Laughter) So for months, I prepared for the argument of my life.

Three weeks before that argument, one of my own teammates decided to try and take me down so that he could argue the case.

He campaigned, he lobbied, he made calls.

Just a few days before the argument, about two weeks, The Washington Post runs an editorial somehow, and I’m going to read this to you word for word: "Strategic mistake." I read it over breakfast.

Look, I don't begrudge the guy.

I mean, whatever.

(Laughter) I had more important things to do because I wasn't replaced.

Up I walked to that mahogany podium, and I won.

The President's tariffs declared unconstitutional.

(Applause) OK, look, I know how this sounds.

Lawyer wins big case, gets a fancy TED talk invitation, talks for 14 minutes about how great he is.

I’ve seen that guy at dinner parties -- nobody stays for dessert.

So that's not what this is.

This is the behind-the-scenes story of four teachers that helped me connect.

And it's also about one secret that I've never told anyone about when I walked out of that courtroom.

[The] first connection I needed was with myself.

I was terrified of blowing the case.

And that Washington Post editorial didn’t help matters.

A month before the argument, I met Ben.

Ben coaches sports legends, Andre Agassi, Olympians and the like.

His whole thing is about “game day.” That moment when everything you’ve been preparing for either shows up, or it doesn't.

Ben's first question to me: "What are you afraid of?" Now look, at that point, I’d argued 52 cases.

I’d saved the Voting Rights Act.

I'd struck down the Guantanamo military tribunals.

But Ben forced me to admit a truth I'd buried from myself.

Every time I walked into the court, I looked at those portraits on the walls and thought: they don’t look like me, I don't belong here.

Imposter syndrome doesn't care about how many cases you won.

It cares about only your doubts.

Ben didn’t dismiss this.

He worked with it.

He had me write down five adjectives and visualize them every day before our pretend court.

About 18 hours before the argument, Ben calls and says, “How are you feeling?” And I say, "Honestly, I'm terrified.

I've got to do a great job.

I've got to remember 500 things.

I've got to deliver an argument for history." Ben says, “You know, change the vowel, use an ‘e’ instead of an ‘o.’” He says, "What do you get to do?" And instantly it pours out of me: "I get to defend the Constitution of the United States.

I get to, the son of immigrants, remind the country of what it's about.

I get to defend my parents' vision of America." (Cheers and applause) One letter.

The terror didn't disappear, but it transformed into joy.

So was Ben the secret, an elite sports coach, who teaches people about mindset?

No. But he got me ready.

The second thing I needed was connection to information at scale.

I assembled the most relentless legal team in the country.

They stress-tested every argument until only the best ones survived.

But I needed more.

I needed someone who was absolutely relentless.

I found Harvey.

Harvey reads the 200th tariff case the same way as he reads the first.

Shoot. Honestly, this is my first time using PowerPoint.

I've given hundreds of speeches -- (Laughter) I didn't want to use it, but they told me to.

So anyway -- (Laughter) The picture's not coming up, but that's fine.

Don't worry about it.

So let's see.

OK, fine, good, we're good.

You know, a month before the argument, Harvey told me that I should expect a question from Justice Barrett about license fees.

And the yellow is what Harvey told me to predict, and blue is what Justice Barrett actually said at the argument.

It's almost verbatim.

So Harvey taught me peripheral vision: the idea [that] if you read a lot, you can see patterns and come up with stuff and anticipate the angles of attack before it arrived.

So was this secret a team of relentless lawyers who never slept, who pressure-tested everything?

Closer, but that's not it either.

The third thing I needed was the hardest.

And it’s something we’ve been talking about today: connection.

Here, I needed to connect with nine very skeptical legal minds and to do so in real time.

Enter Liz, my improv coach.

What does improv have to do with the Supreme Court of the United States?

Everything.

100

Liz's secret: “Neal, you need to actually listen.

101

Actually listen.” She taught me to quiet my own thoughts and to trust myself to come up with the words after the other person had spoken.

102

That’s the essence of “yes, and.” Absorb the question and then build on it.

103

When the justices attacked, I validated their concerns and then bridged back.

104

The interrogation became a dialogue.

105

The room's energy flipped.

106

(Audio) NKK: This power, as Justice Gorsuch said, as Justice Barrett said, is going to be stuck with us forever.

107

Justice Alito, I think you've said many times, the purpose isn't what you look at, you look to actually what the government is doing.

108

Thank you, Justice Kavanaugh.

109

So, five answers on the Nixon precedent.

110

Tariffs are constitutionally special because our Founders feared revenue raising, unlike embargoes.

111

There was no Boston Embargo Party, but there was certainly a Boston Tea Party.

112

Justice Sotomayor, I wish I had an hour to talk about this with you, because this argument by the government is wrong every which way.

113

Justice Alito: I wonder if you ever thought that your legacy as a constitutional advocate would be "the man who revived the non-delegation argument?" NKK: Heck, yes, Justice Alito.

114

So was the secret an improv coach who taught a lawyer to “yes, and” the justices?

115

That would be a hell of a TED talk.

116

But no, that's not it either.

117

(Laughter) Liz taught me the power of connection.

118

And the fourth teacher, the fourth teacher, the one who taught me the most important thing.

119

The thing we forget: to connect with yourself.

120

Enter Bob, my meditation coach.

121

Now I am just about the last person to meditate.

122

I thought meditation was for people who own crystals.

123

I do not own crystals.

124

(Laughter) But -- (Laughter) Way before, way before the tariffs argument, I started working with Bob, and he had me, 20 minutes a day, focus on a single word.

125

He didn't send an app.

126

He actually rented an apartment a block from the court.

127

And we worked together every day, focusing on that word.

128

Bob didn't just give me a mantra, he gave me a weapon.

129

When I walked into court that day, the static was cleared.

130

I was calm. I was dangerous.

131

Was Bob the secret, the crystal-free meditation coach?

132

No. But close.

133

Because Bob, like Ben, like Liz, are human.

134

That fourth teacher is not.

135

Harvey is an AI.

136

A bespoke system I'd been building with a legal AI company for the last year.

137

And I trained it on every question asked by a Supreme Court justice in the last 25 years and everything they've written, every opinion, every concurrence, every dissent, every separate opinion.

138

And in that, patterns emerged.

139

It predicted the contours of the very argument I would face.

140

It knew that Justice Gorsuch would ask me about the taxing power.

141

It knew Justice Kavanaugh was going to grill me on tariffs versus embargoes.

142

It nailed Justice Barrett's worry about tariff refunds.

143

And the Chief Justice?

144

It didn’t just predict his question, it predicted a possible escape route.

145

How the Chief Justice could vote for us and at the same time protect the institution he had spent his entire career defending.

146

Harvey glimpsed that narrow door, I held the door open, the Chief Justice walked through it, riding a six-to-three opinion, striking down the tariffs.

147

Harvey even predicted Justice Gorsuch's separate opinion, striking down the tariffs, almost verbatim.

148

Now I want to be precise about something.

149

I'm a lawyer, precision really matters.

150

What we were doing was not some trick.

151

We weren't pulling some fast one over on the court when we predicted these things.

152

Because predictability is what we want, especially in courts.

153

A justice who returns to the same principles case after case, year after year, is a justice with character.

154

Predictability is just consistency made visible.

155

It is, in every sense, a compliment.

156

What Harvey found in these justices was not weakness.

157

It was integrity.

158

But if I had just parroted Harvey's output, I would have lost the case 10-zero, and there aren’t even 10 justices.

159

(Laughter) Because AI has a shadow side.

160

When a tool is powerful, when a tool is powerful, you've all seen it, people stop thinking.

161

"The computer says so." Four words, human judgment ends, then people just fold like a cheap lawn chair.

162

The machine thinks, the human just nods, and in that nod somewhere, we disappear.

163

My legal team never nodded.

164

Harvey was not some god, it was our sparring partner -- brilliant, tireless, occasionally insufferable -- but not a god.

165

Harvey asked the questions, we found the answer[s].

166

Now this is bigger than just law.

167

It's about all of us.

168

For centuries, the expert was the person who read the most, who remembered the most, who'd seen the most, the seasoned doctor, the experienced lawyer.

169

Their edge was accumulated knowledge.

170

AI is making that edge nearly worthless.

171

Not because humans no longer matter, but because that particular advantage, pattern recognition across vast data and breadth of knowledge, is now available to anyone.

172

AI can analyze, AI can predict.

173

But the one thing AI can't do is the thing that actually won that argument.

174

Connect. That's the last irreplaceable human skill.

175

Persuade one person to change their mind by appealing to something beneath the surface.

176

Adjust not just the argument, but the delivery, the pause, the tone, the look that says, "I hear you.

177

And here is my answer." You know, at one moment in the argument, Justice Barrett asked a question that Harvey hadn't predicted.

178

And I remember it felt like she and I were the only two people in that marble and mahogany room.

179

And in the half-second before I answered, I did something no algorithm can do.

180

I looked at her.

181

I really looked.

182

I wanted to understand her worry.

183

And I answered the worry.

184

That lesson is true for all of us.

185

You don't just got to do it, you get to do it, in an interview, in a negotiation, in a conversation that could save a marriage or end one.

186

Any place in which you need to reach another human and actually connect.

187

The question AI poses to every one of us is not will you be replaced?

188

The question is, what is the irreducibly human thing that you do?

189

Go deeper into it.

190

Not to "survive AI," but to come home to yourself.

191

That's where your edge lives.

192

So Ben taught me to reframe, Harvey gave me foresight, Liz taught me to listen and Bob taught me stillness.

193

Four teachers, four connections, one argument.

194

An argument that some have called the most important decision the Supreme Court has made in a century.

195

When I walked into the court that day, I never felt more like I was exactly where I was meant to be.

196

I brought to the podium no mountain of legal notes, just an email from Liz about the power of connection.

197

And on the top of that, in my own handwriting, scrawled my parents' names, my children's names, my wife's name.

198

The people I was fighting for.

199

My father was my first audience.

200

He didn't get to live to see this argument, but as I walked out of the courtroom afterwards, past those marble walls, past the portraits of people who didn't look like me, I got a text on my phone, an email from Ben.

201

"So happy for you, Neal!

202

I think your dad was watching over you too." The newest technology, the oldest human wisdom, the most powerful court.

203

I get to do that.

204

(Applause and cheers)

TRENDING

Phổ biến

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?

Shadowing là kỹ thuật học ngôn ngữ có cơ sở khoa học, ban đầu được phát triển cho chương trình đào tạo phiên dịch viên chuyên nghiệp và được phổ biến rộng rãi bởi nhà đa ngôn ngữ học Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Nguyên lý cốt lõi đơn giản nhưng cực kỳ hiệu quả: bạn nghe tiếng Anh của người bản xứ và lặp lại to ngay lập tức — như một "cái bóng" (shadow) đuổi theo người nói với độ trễ chỉ 1–2 giây. Khác với luyện ngữ pháp hay học từ vựng bị động, Shadowing buộc não bộ và cơ miệng phải đồng thời xử lý và tái tạo ngôn ngữ thực tế. Các nghiên cứu khoa học xác nhận phương pháp này cải thiện đáng kể phát âm, ngữ điệu, nhịp điệu, nối âm, kỹ năng nghe và độ lưu loát khi nói — đặc biệt hiệu quả cho người luyện IELTS Speaking và muốn giao tiếp tiếng Anh tự nhiên như người bản ngữ.

ShadowingEnglish.com – Luyện Nói Tiếng Anh Bằng Shadowing

Nói tiếng Anh lưu loát với phương pháp Shadowing — nghe người bản xứ, đọc theo từng câu, rèn phản xạ ngôn ngữ thật sự. Được hàng ngàn người học IELTS tin dùng.

Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: What Really Won the Trillion-Dollar Supreme Court Case | Neal Kumar Katyal | TED

Phổ biến

Thông Tin Về Bài Học Này

Từ Vựng & Cụm Từ Quan Trọng

Mẹo Tập Luyện

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?

Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: What Really Won the Trillion-Dollar Supreme Court Case | Neal Kumar Katyal | TED

Tải Ứng Dụng

Thông Tin Về Bài Học Này

Từ Vựng & Cụm Từ Quan Trọng

Mẹo Tập Luyện

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?