Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[71]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[71]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,27 +1,0 @@
1		-====A Interpretation: The Aff must defend that legislative branches of the United States limit qualified immunity – they may not defend courts do it====
2		-
3		-====‘Resolved’ denotes a proposal to be enacted by law====
4		-
5		-Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition “Resolved.”. 1964
6		-
7		-Definition of the
8		-AND
9		-establish by law”.
10		-
11		-====B Violation====
12		-
13		-====C Net Benefits====
14		-
15		-====1 Object fiat – the 1AC assumes courts would just change their mind, and revert previous decisions – not how the process works. They fiat a change in their mindsets, which is both utopian and multi-actor. Legislature solves – it’s explicitly proposed and passed, but doesn’t rely on specific actors changing their minds.====
16		-
17		-====2 Topic lit – the core controversy of the topic is how to galvanize the public through legislative changes, which protests can influence.====
18		-
19		-Keffer and Barnhart: Bradley Keffer and Scott Barnhart Partners, Keffer Barnhart LLP “INBOX: Lawyers question use of qualified immunity for police.” The Indiana Lawyer. December 2014. RP
20		-
21		-However, if qualified
22		-AND
23		-limited by law.
24		-
25		-====3 Extra T – to strike down a ruling requires a case be brought before the Courts – they wouldn’t just randomly rule – that means the fiat of the Aff requires a lawsuit, which is obviously ridiculous.====
26		-
27		-====D T is a voting issue====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-11-06 18:51:02.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Dave McGinnis, Devane Murphy

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Apple Valley KA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-42

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Harrison Piliero Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-NOVDEV - Courts T

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Apple Valley RR