| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,117 @@ |
|
1 |
+===CP=== |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+====Text – the United States Congress should pass legislation limiting qualified immunity for police officers by… ought to limit qualified immunity by adopting the Ninth Circuit's decision on Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act's applicability to arrest situations in Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco as a legal precedent for all circuits on the next available test case.==== |
|
5 |
+ |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+====Contention One is Solvency==== |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+====Remember – the Affirmative has No Defense of the Court as an Actor – they may have evidence saying that the Court Can solve, but there is no evidence or arguments for why Court action is Necessary. If we both solve the case Exactly the same, then any Risk of the net benefit means you vote negative.==== |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+====Congress should limit qualified immunity – this will increase accountability==== |
|
14 |
+**Newman, 2016 - senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit **~~Jon O. The Washington Post June 24, 2016 "A better way to punish police How to punish police: Sue them for negligence" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/heres-a-better-way-to-punish-the-police-sue-them-for-money/2016/06/23/c0608ad4-3959-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html?utm_term=.c67051e854f7~~ |
|
15 |
+Suing the officer for money damages in a federal civil rights suit is the only |
|
16 |
+AND |
|
17 |
+a strengthened Section 1983 remedy available for the next episode of police misconduct. |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+====Congressional change is better than the court – it improves public acceptance which is key to shifting culture – the Court sparks a public backlash==== |
|
21 |
+**Stoddard, 1997, Lambda's former executive director** ~~~~Thomas, November, New York University Law Review "Bleeding heart: Reflections on using the law to make social change", http://law.ubalt.edu/downlo ads/law_ downloads/Stoddard.pdf~~ |
|
22 |
+C. The Legitimacy (Validity) of Change Awareness of change is never enough |
|
23 |
+AND |
|
24 |
+Act that help to illuminate the different contexts of the two related developments. |
|
25 |
+ |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+====Litigation lures activists to the court, but kills political efforts, drains resources, and crushes the movement.==== |
|
28 |
+**Rosenberg, 2008 - prof. of Political Science at the University of Chicago **(Gerald "The Hollow Hope: Can the Courts Generate Social Change," epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/supctLawRosenberg.doc) |
|
29 |
+In general, then, not only does litigation steer activists to an institution that |
|
30 |
+AND |
|
31 |
+structurally constrained from serving their needs, providing only an illusion of change. |
|
32 |
+ |
|
33 |
+ |
|
34 |
+====Contention Two is the Net Benefit – Judicial Independence==== |
|
35 |
+ |
|
36 |
+ |
|
37 |
+====Judicial activism creates a snowball effect, future abuses of the court power destroy democracy ==== |
|
38 |
+**Mckeever, 1997 - Institution of Advanced Legal Studies** ~~"The United States supreme court: A political and legal analysis." Pg. ~~ |
|
39 |
+At the opposite end of the spectrum form the minimal court lies the unlimited court |
|
40 |
+AND |
|
41 |
+the Congress and President on at least some important matters of public policy. |
|
42 |
+ |
|
43 |
+ |
|
44 |
+====Activism destroys judicial independence by undermining the separation of powers==== |
|
45 |
+**Jipping 2001** - **Director, Center for Law and Democracy** (Thomas Jipping,; Senior Fellow in Legal Studies, Concerned Women for America; M.A., SUNY-Buffalo, 2001, "Legislating from the Bench," 43 S. Tex. L. Rev. 141, l/n) |
|
46 |
+In judicial restraint, with a more modest and normative view of judicial power, |
|
47 |
+AND |
|
48 |
+sine qua non of the judicial role in our system of government." n35 |
|
49 |
+ |
|
50 |
+ |
|
51 |
+====Judicial independence is key to global human rights==== |
|
52 |
+**Alam, 2007**, ~~The New Nation, Prof. Syed Ahsanul http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_33979.shtml |
|
53 |
+ |
|
54 |
+Another criterion of good governance is independent judiciary, important for preserving the rule of |
|
55 |
+AND |
|
56 |
+considered globally for the eligibility when determining whether a country practices good governance. |
|
57 |
+ |
|
58 |
+ |
|
59 |
+====Global human rights are key to avoid Extinction==== |
|
60 |
+**Human Rights Web, 1994** (An Introduction to the Human Rights Movement Created on July 20, 1994 / Last edited on January 25, 1997, http://www.hrweb.org/intro.html) |
|
61 |
+The United Nations Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and UN Human Rights |
|
62 |
+AND |
|
63 |
+of the individuals and countries involved, but to preserve the human race. |
|
64 |
+ |
|
65 |
+ |
|
66 |
+====Contention Three – Agent Counterplans are Legitimate==== |
|
67 |
+ |
|
68 |
+ |
|
69 |
+====1. The Affirmative defended the Court in CX. They chose to defend the Court to gain the benefit of avoiding Theory arguments and accessing empirical solvency. There is a cost to this choice – once they have specified an agent, they have to defend it – that is why agent counterplans are legitimate. Cross Ex is Binding:==== |
|
70 |
+ |
|
71 |
+ |
|
72 |
+====a. It's a speech – A Constructive even. An argument or admission there counts as much as in an AC, otherwise CX is a pointless exercise==== |
|
73 |
+ |
|
74 |
+ |
|
75 |
+====b. Predictable ground – if they won't defend what they said they would defend, then I can Never predict what ground they Will defend.==== |
|
76 |
+ |
|
77 |
+ |
|
78 |
+====c. Cross Ex functions to clarify arguments – it is slower and it is directed by the questioner ==== |
|
79 |
+ |
|
80 |
+ |
|
81 |
+===DA=== |
|
82 |
+ |
|
83 |
+ |
|
84 |
+====A. Uniqueness – The Supreme Court has legitimacy – that's key to enforcement of its decisions ==== |
|
85 |
+**Hillygus'12 **~~Sunshine, professor of political science at Duke University, Perceptions of Supreme Court Legitimacy, You Gov, 7/15/2012 https://today.yougov.com/news/2012/07/15/perceptions-supreme-court-legitimacy/ LM~~ |
|
86 |
+In the two weeks since the Supreme Court upheld Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA |
|
87 |
+AND |
|
88 |
+is conditional on perceptions of the ideological direction of the Court's decision making. |
|
89 |
+ |
|
90 |
+ |
|
91 |
+====B. Link ==== |
|
92 |
+Overturning decisions looks like judicial activism – this hurts legitimacy |
|
93 |
+Bigel '93 Alan Bigel, PhD in political science on the effect of court case decisions on public support of and legitimacy of the court, "PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA v. CASEY: CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND POLITICAL TURBULENCE," 1993, 18 Dayton L. Rev. 733 |
|
94 |
+In an effort to quell potential criticism of the Court's failure to overrule Roe, |
|
95 |
+AND |
|
96 |
+the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision . . . ." n146 |
|
97 |
+ |
|
98 |
+ |
|
99 |
+====The Affirmative would destroy legitimacy – it would be unpopular and over turn precedent==== |
|
100 |
+**Bernstein 2008** ~~Janessa L. Bernstein, J.D. Candidate, Brooklyn Law School, 2008; B.A., Vanderbilt University, 2003, "The Underground Railroad to Reproductive Freedom: RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAWS AND THE RESULTING BACKLASH" 73 Brooklyn Law Review 1463, Summer 2008, Lexis~~ |
|
101 |
+Abortion remains a politically divisive issue within the United States and the world, with |
|
102 |
+AND |
|
103 |
+refusal laws that allow doctors and hospitals to decline to perform abortions. n41 |
|
104 |
+ |
|
105 |
+ |
|
106 |
+====C. Impact – Legitimacy key to Democracy which protects minority groups==== |
|
107 |
+Peretti 1999 (Terri J., In Defense of a Political Court, Princeton University Press) |
|
108 |
+Should the Court lose its legitimacy and, consequently, its power, we in |
|
109 |
+AND |
|
110 |
+role, if we are to believe Philip Kurland, are horrible indeed. |
|
111 |
+ |
|
112 |
+ |
|
113 |
+====Democracy solves war==== |
|
114 |
+**Diamond 95**, (Larry Diamond, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives, Carnegie Commission, December 1995, http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/Promoting20Democracy20in20the201990s20Actors20and20Instruments,20Issues20and20Imperatives.pdf) |
|
115 |
+Other Threats. This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well |
|
116 |
+AND |
|
117 |
+which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. |