Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[9]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[10]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[9]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-02 20:52:19.832
	1	+2016-12-02 20:52:19.0

Caselist.CitesClass[10]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,126 @@
	1	+==1AC==
	2	+The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best liberates the black body through plausible political actions. To clarify that means policies that follow the structure of the state rather than just saying they pass a policy that kills everyone in government instantaneously. (for my opponent: plausible just means that it follows the same rules and regulations as other policies and actions we've seen passed. ie weve seen Qi restricted (a long time ago) but the state would never commit itself to self destruction without being deceived. Political = public./seeable)
	3	+Qualified immunity is entrenched in racism as it was founded as backlash by the courts against white supremicist officers being held liable for gratitious violence by section 1983
	4	+Kirby 2K John D. Kirby, Qualified Immunity for Civil Rights Violations: Refining the Standard , 85 Cornell L. Rev. 461 (2000) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol85/iss4/11 HSLASC
	5	+I BACKGROUND
	6	+The qualified immunity doctrine grew out of the use of section 1983 and the Bivens doctrine by individuals seeking redress for violations of their constitutional rights.2' The Court's expansive reading of section 1983,^^22^^ and its announcement of a new cause of action in Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,^^23^^ created the potential for a vast increase in personal liability for federal and state officials. The Court reacted to this new potential for liability by carving out pockets of immunity for certain classes of officials. 24 1. Section 1983 At its inception, section 198325 was specifically intended as a response to the systematic violence and injustice against southern blacks in the wake of the Civil War.^^26^^ The Act, written in broad terms, provides a remedy against "any person" who, under color of state law, deprives any person of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ...." ^^27^^Since 1961, the Supreme Court has expanded the coverage of section 1983 to fit its sweeping language.28 In Monroe v. Pape,29 the Court held that section 1983 provides a remedy for any constitutional violation committed under color of state law.3 0 Since this landmark decision, lower courts have permitted use of section 1983 to remedy a wide variety of constitutional violations far beyond the original, limited purpose of the Act.3 ' Prior to Monroe, the Court had been unclear about whether the phrase "under color of state law" included officials' actions not mandated by the law of their state.32 Monroe resolved this issue by holding that "under color of state law" in the context of section 1983 includes actions that are illegal under state law, as long as the misuse of power was made possible only because the violator was "clothed with the authority of state law . . . Monroe vastly increased the scope of unconstitutional acts section 1983 covered. Together with the Court's later ruling in Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 34 Monroe imposed liability on individual officials rather than on municipalities themselves. The Monell Court held that although local and municipal governments could be sued under section 1983 for violations if they were directly liable, they could not be held liable under the theory of respondeat superior.35 This partial immunity for municipalities often left the offending official as the sole defendant.36
	7	+Outweighs –
	8	+a. Their evidence won't account for the historical legacys of qualified immunity – its limited perspective makes it less equipped to predict the material effects of the aff on the Criminal Justice System
	9	+b. Internal link turns the aff– QI is tainted with exclusionary assumptions and endorses values of white supremacy – even if the neg has good intentions, it’ll fail. And neg harms cards are just reasons why allowing QI to continue won't solve anything.
	10	+And qualified immunity gives police officers a license to kill as just like Nazi officers police are put above the law and are permitted to perform atrocious acts against minorities so long as they were following orders to some reasonable extent.
	11	+Heller: Heller, Jacob. J.D. Candidate, Stanford Law School "Abominable Acts." Vermont Law Review, Vol. 34:311, 2010.
	12	+In these cases, courts take one of two courses: uphold qualified immunity even where the act is patently egregious or to provide an exception to qualified immunity where the conduct in question is both egregious and unconstitutional. This subpart will critically analyze the decisions on both sides of the split. Importantly, all of the decisions discussed below were decided after Hope, indicating that although the Court has arguably departed from the Anderson requirement that there be a case on point to constitute "clearly established" law, some lower courts still find officers not requisitely "on notice" that their acts were wrongful—even while committing abominable acts. Upholding Qualified Immunity for Egregious Acts Many circuits have faced situations where an official’s conduct was egregious and unconstitutional. Yet these circuits applied the Court’s qualified immunity cases and found time and again that extreme behavior, despite its obvious egregiousness, did not put the rights-violator on "notice" that she might be subject to lawsuit. These circuits have ruled this way in two circumstances: (1) where they faced novel and unusual factual situations and (2) where they encountered novel legal theories of relief. What is interesting about these cases is that, even while shielding officers from suit under qualified immunity, the court often notes that the conduct was reprehensible. That is, while some opinions had a majority of judges agreeing to uphold qualified immunity, they also had a majority of judges agreeing that the core conduct was wrong.
	13	+AND
	14	+When courts use qualified immunity to protect officials who commit abominable acts the balance struck in Harlow is completely undermined. Immunizing these officers from suit (obviously) does not serve the goals of redressing the plaintiff’s harm or holding officers accountable for lawbreaking conduct. But it also does not serve to reassure future officials that they can act resolutely in carrying out their duties. After all, the officers’ conduct in all of these cases is nothing close to what an officer would contemplate in the normal execution of her job duties. It is shallow comfort for officers in the Fourth Circuit to know that if they chain a man to a post and abandon him there in the middle of the night after Robles, they would not be immune from suit; or for officers in the Second Circuit to know that if they encourage a fellow officer to drink and drive after Pena, that they would have to spend a day in court. The message sent to officials is, at best, that courts are willing to overprotect officers, even in the most extreme cases; and at worst, that officers are above the rule of civilized law.
	15	+Qualified immunity sets a precedent for dismissal of civil rights suits, which maintains the legitimacy of the police state.
	16	+Carter 15 Tom (World Socialist Website) "US Supreme Court expands immunity for killer cops" International Committee of the Fourth International November 12th 2015
	17	+With the death ... kill a cop!’"
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+====And impact. Historical racism internalized into existing law causes society to view the other as a biological threat which is the justification for the CJS's black genocide We need to unmask state violence. Mendieta 02====
	21	+ (Eduardo, Associate professor of philosophy at Penn State) "To make live and to let die’ – Foucault on Racism", Meeting of the Foucault Circle APA Central Division Meeting, 04/25/2015 DD
	22	+This is where racism intervenes, not from without, exogenously, but from within, constitutively. For the emergence of biopower as the form of a new form of political rationality, entails the inscription within the very logic of the modern state the logic of racism. For racism grants, and here I am quoting: "the conditions for the acceptability of putting to death in a society of normalization. Where there is a society of normalization, where is a power that is, in all of its surface and in first instance, and first line, a bio-power, racism is indispensable as a condition to be able to put to death someone, in order to be able to put to death others. The homicidal meurtrière function of the state, to the degree that the state functions on the modality of bio-power, can only be assured by racism "(Foucault 1997, 227). To use the formulations from his 1982 lecture "The Political Technology of Individuals" – which incidentally, echo his 1979 Tanner Lectures – the power of the state after the 18th century, a power which is enacted through the police, and is enacted over the population, is a power over living beings, and as such it is a biopolitics. And, to quote more directly, "since the population is nothing more than what the state takes care of for its own sake, of course, the state is entitled to slaughter it, if necessary. So the reverse of biopolitcs is thanatopolitics." (Foucault 2000, 416). Racism, is the thanatopolitical technology, one same political rationality; the management of life, the life of a population, the tending to the continuum of life of a people.¶ And with the inscription of racism within the state of biopower, the long history of war that Foucault has been telling in these dazzling lectures has made a new turn: the war of peoples, a war against invaders, imperials colonizers, which turned into a war of races, to then turn into a war of classes has now turned into the war of a race, a biological unit, against its polluters and threats. Racism is the means by which bourgeois political power, biopower, rekindles the fires of war within civil society. Racism normalizes and medicalizes war. Racism makes war the permanent condition of society, while at the same time masking its weapons of death and torture. As I wrote somewhere else, racism banalizes genocide by making quotidian the lynching of suspect threats to the health of the social body. Racism makes the killing of the other, of others, an everyday occurrence by internalizing and normalizing the war of society against its enemies. To protect society entails we be ready to kill its threats, its foes, and if we understand society as a unity of life, as a continuum of the living, then these threats and foes are biological in nature.
	23	+
	24	+
	25	+====Thus we demand: The United States has a moral obligation to limit qualified immunity for police officers by banning it in all instances of police violence. I reserve the right to clarify.====
	26	+
	27	+
	28	+====QI is a necessary step towards the abolition of the police state and prisons We cannot immediately disengage with the state with the snap of our fingers – it takes a process that involves making demands until the movement is powerful enough to achieve liberation. That's why we're a method of infiltrating the state.====
	29	+**Martin 15** (Marlene Martin works for the Campaign to End the Death Penalty and is an active member of the International Socialist Organization. "Cell Blocks for Killer Cops?" Jacobin. LEFC May 10, 2015.)
	30	+I agree that the system is racist and violent to the core, but I
	31	+AND
	32	+on the rest of us, including going to jail for committing murder.
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+====And civil lawsuits are the only way to expose police violence which means the aff burden of solvency is getting officers to court since that’s where we can build up the movement Bernick, Evan. Contributor, Foundation for Economic Education "To Hold Police Accountable, Don’t Give Them Immunity." Foundation for Economic Education, April 2015. ====
	36	+It’s a question that the Institute for Justice is familiar with. In 2005, we litigated the case of Kelo v. City of New London, which dealt with the question of whether a private developer, exercising the government’s power of eminent domain, could bulldoze an entire working-class neighborhood for so-called "economic development." The Supreme Court said yes. And Americans were outraged — how could that happen in this country? Susette Kelo, who lost her home, might not seem to have much in common with Freddie Gray, who lost his life. But both were victims of unchecked government power. The sad fact is that it is often effectively impossible to hold police officers accountable for unconstitutional acts. That fact is attributable in large part (due) to a potent well of unchecked power that many Americans have never heard of. You will not find it in the Constitution. You will not find it in any federal law. It is a judge-made doctrine, invented by the Supreme Court. It is called qualified immunity. And if those charged with enforcing the law are to be kept within the bounds of their rightful authority, it must be abolished. Section 1983, the federal law that allows citizens to sue for constitutional violations, is broad, unequivocal, and unambiguous. It says that "every person" who is acting "under color of" law who causes a "deprivation of any rights… secured by the Constitution and laws" "shall be liable to the party injured." Section 1983 embodies a foundational principle of justice that resonates with Americans who have never heard of Marbury v. Madison: where there is a right, there is a remedy. But for decades, we have had rights without remedies. In the 1967 case of Pierson v. Ray, the Supreme Court held that police officers sued for constitutional violations can raise "qualified immunity" as a defense, and thereby escape paying out of their own pockets, even if they violated a person’s constitutional rights. This decision was unabashedly policy-oriented: it was thought that government officials would not vigorously fulfill their obligations if they could be held accountable for actions taken in good faith. Under current law, the general rule is that victims of rights violations pay the costs of their own injuries. In practice, qualified immunity provides a near-absolute defense to all but the most outrageous conduct. The Ninth Circuit has held that throwing a flash-bang grenade "blindly" into a house, injuring a toddler, isn’t outrageous enough. Just last year, in Plumhoff v. Rickard, the Supreme Court decided that firing 15 bullets at a motorist is a reasonable method to end the driver’s flight from the police. So much for "every person" "shall be liable." Qualified immunity shields police misconduct not only from liability but also from meaningful judicial scrutiny. Private lawsuits are an essential tool in uncovering the truth about police misconduct. The discovery process can yield information that makes broader policy changes within police departments possible. At trial, judicial engagement — an impartial, evidence-based determination of the constitutionality of the officer’s actions — can take place. Qualified immunity can cut this search for truth short. If qualified immunity is raised as a defense before trial and the judge denies it, that decision is immediately appealable. If it is granted, discovery stops, and there is no trial on the merits. What needs to happen? Simply put, qualified immunity (it) has to go. It should be replaced with a rule of strict liability for bona fide constitutional violations. There are a variety of possible rules. First, police officers could be held personally liable for any rights violations. They’d need to carry personal malpractice insurance, just like lawyers, doctors, and other professionals. Insurance companies are qualified and motivated judges of risk, and they would provide another reasonable level of scrutiny on police conduct, policies, and training. Second, police departments could be held liable for any rights violations by officers and punitive damages could be assessed against individual officers for particularly outrageous conduct. Third, police departments could be required to insure officers up to a certain amount — officers would have to purchase insurance to cover any costs in excess of that amount. As ambitious as these reforms might seem, never underestimate the power of widespread public outrage. In the case of Kelo, the Court’s cavalier treatment of property rights led to a number of laws protecting citizens from eminent domain abuse in states across the country. Here, too, the public can force legislators to respond. The question of how to ensure that officers exercise the authority delegated to them with the proper vigor, while also keeping them within the limits of that authority, should be left in the first instance to elected officials — subject to constitutional limits and the requirements of valid federal laws (like Section 1983). Qualified immunity enables officers to flout those limits and those laws. We must replace the judicially-invented impunity that police officers currently enjoy with a realistic avenue for the vindication of constitutional rights.
	37	+
	38	+
	39	+
	40	+====And we need to build up methods of community policing by reforming the police system. It allows black people to become advocators of their issues which is the starting point for wider revolution====
	41	+ Davis, Ronald L. was appointed by United States Attorney General Eric Holder in November 2013 as the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). "Police Reform vs Policing Reform Letter" https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/speeches'and'statements/Davis'Article'Policing'Reform.pdf====
	42	+likely recruitment and hiring practices will focus not only on hiring diverse, qualified candidates
	43	+AND
	44	+serve but also on hiring candidates who see themselves as members of that community
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+==Framing==
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+====Educational systems have historically excluded Black thought to sustain White supremacy. Your role as a judge and educator is to reverse that – interjecting Black thought is a prerequisite to ethical debate. Schnyder 08:====
	51	+Damien Michael Schnyder (PhD, University of California’s President’s Postdoctoral Fellow) "First Strike," https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2009/schnyderd25688/schnyderd25688.pdf
	52	+Ms. Fox’s clear disregard for her students belies a racist logic that dehumanizes Blackness
	53	+AND
	54	+their role is vital to the maintenance of state domination of Black subjects.
	55	+
	56	+
	57	+====And resisting oppression is a D-rule====
	58	+Beversluis 89 (brackets in originally)
	59	+Beversluis 89 — Eric H. Beversluis, Professor of Philosophy and Economics at Aquinas College, holds an A.B. in Philosophy and German from Calvin College, an M.A. in Philosophy from Northwestern University, an M.A. in Economics from Ohio State University, and a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Education from Northwestern University, 1989 ("On Shunning Undesirable Regimes: Ethics and Economic Sanctions," Public Affairs Quarterly, Volume 3, Number 2, April, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via JSTOR, p. 17-19)
	60	+But how can a case for shunning be made on this view of morality?
	61	+AND
	62	+is the fabric of blackness in the United States (67, 68).
	63	+
	64	+
	65	+====Prefer the state as a heuristic:====
	66	+
	67	+
	68	+====1. The 1AC uses the state as a descriptor. When I say you ought to do some action, I do not sever myself from my identity and place myself in your shoes when I make that statement. It is a belief of what you ought to do. When we say the state ought to do something, we are not the state; we are saying the state should do this good thing.====
	69	+
	70	+
	71	+====2. We recognize the state can be bad, that’s the point of the aff. Revolutionary politics requires a strategy based in the present for real results, which means we start with the state. Sotiris 15:====
	72	+~~Panagiotis Sotiris (Department of Philosophy, Psychology and Pedagogy, and Communication and Media @ University of Athens, Faculty of Letters, Department of Philosophical and Social Studies @ University of Crete, Department of Psychology @ Panteion University, Department of Sociology @ University of the Aegean), "The Realism of Audacity: Rethinking Revolutionary Strategy Today." November 13, 2015. http://salvage.zone/online-exclusive/the-realism-of-audacity-rethinking-revolutionary-strategy-today~~ SF
	73	+Unfortunately, historical experience shows both the catalytic and indispensable aspect of the insurrectionary sequence
	74	+AND
	75	+NO. No to pessimism, no to surrender, no to defeat.
	76	+
	77	+
	78	+==U/V==
	79	+
	80	+
	81	+====1. Give aff RVIs: A) 7-4-6-3 time skew crunches the 1AR with NIB shells w/o an RVI, this trades off topic edu for my time spent covering their shell and not debating substance and fairness for lost time on substance B) without an RVI, theory/T is a NIB – they can win under the AC framework, so I should get the same.====
	82	+
	83	+
	84	+====2. Give aff RVIs on T if I win my interp: A) I don’t reject the resolution, my advocacy assumes a certain reading of the rez where my aff is topical, that I can clarify in CX, so all neg T args have to be relative to the implicit definitions of the 1AC and their violation is proof of my interp. B) Competing interps is supposed to produce norms as a product of the interp, if their interp is bad for debate they should lose, I can’t sever out of my T claims but they can otherwise C) Even if it’s my burden to be topical, topicality args are still subjective and won on the line-by-line so that burden is infinitely unclear. The validity of our interps is separate from theoretical aff burdens b/c it is a separate claim about the content of that burden.====
	85	+
	86	+
	87	+====3. Aff should get new 2NR responses to new shells or else the 2ar is a sitting duck.====
	88	+
	89	+
	90	+====4. Fairness as a concept isn’t confined between us. Education impacts that shift notions societal fairness are a prior question. Delgado 92:====
	91	+Richard Delgado (Law Prof at U. of Colorado), "Shadowboxing: An Essay On Power," In Cornell Law Review, May 1992.
	92	+The debate on objective and subjective standards touches on these issues of world-making
	93	+AND
	94	+more closely are paternalistic, and verge on (shhh!) socialism). ^^n40^^
	95	+
	96	+
	97	+
	98	+====There was never such a thing as a good cop. In the 1860s, they caught and killed Black slaves. In 1960 they beat civil rights protestors. Today, they still what they do best. Contrary to liberal logic, the police are here to maintain the power of the civil society and the ruling class against those people it deems a threat.====
	99	+**Mitrani 14** (Sam Mitran is an Associate Professor of History at the College of DuPage, he earned his PhD from the University of Illinois at Chicago; "Stop Kidding Yourself The Police Were Created to Control Working Class and Poor People" The Labor and Working-Class History Association. LEFC December 29, 2014.)
	100	+In most of the liberal discussions of the recent police killings of unarmed black men
	101	+AND
	102	+people, not help them. They’ve continued to play that role ever since
	103	+
	104	+
	105	+====The violence of the police is specifically inimical to Black skin.====
	106	+**Wilderson 3** ~~Frank B. Wilderson (Professor @ UCI), "The Prison Slave as Hegemony’s (Silent) Scandal", Soc Justice 30 no2 LEFC 2003~~
	107	+It makes no difference that in the U.S. the "casbah"
	108	+AND
	109	+recent drug case makes clear the depth and breadth of racism and profiling.
	110	+
	111	+
	112	+=Anything pro black is anti society because=
	113	+
	114	+
	115	+====Civil society is founded on the negation of Blackness — there is a phobic desire to shift attention away from Blackness just like All Lives Matter arose out of Black Lives Matter.====
	116	+**Sexton 11 **(Jared Sexton, Director, African American Studies School of Humanities , Associate Professor, African American Studies School of Humanities, Associate Professor, Film and Media Studies School of Humanities at University of California Irvine, "The Social Life of Social Death: On Afro-Pessimism and Black Optimism" LEFC Fall/Winter of InTensions Journal 2011 )
	117	+~~19~~ In recent years, social death has emerged from a period of
	118	+AND
	119	+arguments (should) begin, but they cannot (yet) proceed.
	120	+
	121	+
	122	+====The state is founded on the negation of Blackness for sure – but we place one last impossible demand on it as a form of departure to new alternatives to the state====
	123	+**Kim 16** (Alice Kim, "We Only Move Forward When We Demand the Impossible: An Interview With Bill Ayers." Truthout. LEFC October 2, 2016)
	124	+So many things. One of the things that jumps at me immediately: It
	125	+AND
	126	+demand reparations for African Americans, to demand peace, and much more.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-02 20:52:20.623

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+any

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+any

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Palo Alto Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOV dec destroy the state v1

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+any on nov dec