Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[18]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[19]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[18]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-30 21:58:06.814
	1	+2016-10-30 21:58:06.0

Caselist.CitesClass[19]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,34 @@
	1	+Clinton is ahead but Trump could still win
	2	+Silver 10/27 Nate; http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-polls-disagree-and-thats-ok/
	3	+
	4	+But what do the polls say? The race probably is tightening — but perhaps not as much as the hype on the cable networks would imply. In our polls-only forecast, Trump has narrowed Clinton’s lead in the popular vote to roughly 6 percentage points from 7 points a week ago, and his chances of winning have ticked up to 17 percent from 13 percent. In our polls-plusforecast, Trump’s chances are up to 19 percent from 16 percent. Because of the high level of uncertainty in the race, we can’t say the door is closed on a narrow Trump victory. And we’re certainly a week or two removed from the period when every poll brought good news for Clinton: Plenty of polls now show negative trend lines for her (in addition to others that show a positive trend). But the race hasn’t fundamentally changed all that much, and Clinton remains in a strong position.
	5	+
	6	+Public popularity supports nuclear.
	7	+Riffkin 15 (Gallup, Inc., 3-30-15, "U.S. Support for Nuclear Energy at 51," Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/182180/support-nuclear-energy.aspx)
	8	+WASHINGTON, D.C. ~-~- A slim majority of Americans (51) now favor the use of nuclear energy for electricity in the U.S., while 43 oppose it. This level of support is similar to what Gallup found when it last measured these attitudes two years ago, but it is down from the peak of 62 five years ago. Current support is on the low end of what Gallup has found in the past 20 years, with the 46 reading in 2001 the only time that it sank lower. The high point in support for the use of nuclear power, in 2010, was recorded shortly after President Barack Obama announced that the federal government would provide loan guarantees for the construction of two nuclear reactors, the first to be built in the U.S. in three decades. Support has generally dropped since then. However, between 2011 and 2012, support was stable, with 57 favoring nuclear energy. This is notable given that Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster took place shortly after polling in 2011.
	9	+
	10	+Positive Hillary approval ratings key to get Garland confirmed before the election.
	11	+Steed 7/29 Jason; extensive experience representing clients in both state and federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Texas, the Supreme Court of California, the Supreme Court of Alaska, and the Supreme Court of the United States; former English professor and award-winning writer; Forma Legalis; 7/29/16; “How Garland Gets Confirmed Before the Election”; https://formalegalis.org/2016/07/29/how-garland-gets-confirmed-before-the-election/; JLB (8/3/2016)
	12	+My theory: If we get deep into August and the polls are showing not only a strong lead for Clinton but also promising leads in enough of those senate races, it will take only credible whispers of withdrawing Garland’s nomination to make the Republicans nervous enough to go ahead and confirm him before the election. And how do you create a credible threat of withdrawal? By taking the stage before millions of viewers for a week to talk about goals and priorities, and the importance of the Supreme Court, without mentioning Garland. There was an effort to rally Democratic voters behind the importance of appointing the right people to the Supreme Court—but no effort to rally Democratic voters behind Garland. Why? Because absenting Garland from the DNC was a signal. The Party didn’t commit itself to Garland. Clinton didn’t commit herself to Garland. Even Obama didn’t push for Garland. The signal: after this week, the possibility of withdrawing Garland on November 9 is real.
	13	+So watch the polls. Senate Republicans are already holding pro forma sessions throughout the summer, to prevent Obama from recess-appointing Garland without them. If they get nervous enough about the polls, it won’t be too hard to pull together an actual session to vote on Garland. They don’t even need hearings, which aren’t required—because everyone already knows Garland is supremely qualified for the job. All they need is a simple majority present to vote. And it could happen before the Court begins its October Term.
	14	+
	15	+Garland will allow the EPA latitude to regulate CO2
	16	+Page 3-16 Samantha; Think Progress, Merrick Garland Knows He’s Not a Scientist, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/16/3760853/garland-environmental-record/ DOA: 3-16-16
	17	+How do you judge a judge? In the case of Judge Merrick Garland, who President Obama nominated for the Supreme Court on Wednesday, there is not much evidence for or against his environmental record. But as cases against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and other regulatory actions head to the courts, it’s important to glean what we can. By and large, Garland has a reputation for allowing agencies to do the work they set out to do — and that’s usually a good thing for the environment. Albert Lin, a professor at UC Davis specializing in environmental and natural resources law, clerked for Garland at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and said the judge was thorough and open-minded. “I don’t think he expressed a specific view towards the EPA, per se, but he recognized that government agencies have a role,” Lin told ThinkProgress. “They should have some discretion as to how they function — but he also wasn’t going to give them a free pass.” In 1985, during his time at the Washington, D.C. firm Arnold and Porter, Garland wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review in favor of allowing agencies to have some discretion over how they carry out Congress’ intents. According to Bloomberg, Garland has practiced what he preached. On the D.C. Circuit bench, which is responsible for hearing most administrative cases, such as the recent Clean Power Plan challenge, a third of Garland’s dissents have been over challenges to agency decision-making. In all of those dissents, Garland sided with the agency. And with a deadlocked Congress, further action on the environment is going to continue to come from executive actions intended to protect American’s air, water, and climate under existing frameworks, said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. Bringing that to a contemporary context, in the Clean Power Plan challenge, one critical issue comes down to whether, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. In fact, there are two conflicting amendments regarding that authority on the books. So, it’s important in this case that the the judges look not only at the Congress’ wording — which is contradictory — but at the intent of the law. This is where Garland presents a possible victory for environmentalists. “He will not just consider the plain language, but what’s the statute trying to accomplish,” Lin said. That means that the judge does not always side with the administration — he sides with what the law is trying to accomplish. Sometimes, that also works out for the environment. In 2004, Garland wrote the majority opinion that ruled against the EPA’s approval of a Washington, D.C. plan to reduce smog that didn’t bring the area into compliance. “We agree with Sierra Club’s principal contention that EPA was not authorized to grant conditional approval to plans that did nothing more than promise to do tomorrow what the Act requires today,” Garland wrote of the Bush-era approval. In a 2012 case Garland again sided with an agency, that time the DEA. Although medical marijuana advocates decried the final decision, during the argument, Garland said something that might cheer environmentalists. “Don’t we have to defer to their judgment?” Garland asked about the agency. “We’re not scientists. They are.” After years of ridiculing the conservative talking point that it’s reasonable to reject the scientific consensus around climate change because “I am not a scientist,” it’s refreshing to hear someone say, I am not a scientist, and therefore we have to listen to scientists. Of course, there are other ways the court can influence environmental policy. “We will see ongoing challenges to money in politics, whether it’s state ballot initiatives, redistricting — there is a whole slew of things that are electorally related that will undoubtedly make their way up to the Supreme Court,” Pica said. Having an Obama-appointed justice “gives us some hope that the Supreme Court can undo some of those terrible rulings that were championed by Scalia on the conservative side of the bench.” As news hit of Garland’s nomination Wednesday, environmental groups called for the Senate to go forward with the confirmation process — something GOP leadership has pledged not to do.
	18	+
	19	+Clean Power Plan necessary to meet international climate targets.
	20	+Fulton 16 Bydeirdre "Nothing Less Than Fate of Planet Hinges on Next Supreme Court Nominee", 2-18-2016, Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/17/nothing-less-fate-planet-hinges-next-supreme-court-nominee, DOA: 2-18-2016
	21	+As Washington, D.C. gears up for a Supreme Court showdown, experts this week are predicting that the person chosen to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the high court bench will have a huge impact on the fate of the planet.
	22	+Common Dreams previously reported that several high-profile cases hang in the balance in the wake of Scalia's death. But perhaps none will be as closely watched as the case that pits fossil fuel giants and Republicans against environmentalists and the Obama administration.
	23	+"In dying," science journalist John Upton wrote on Sunday, "Scalia may have done more to support global climate action than most people will do in their lifetimes."
	24	+That's because, as Upton explained in a separate piece, Scalia's death "means it is now more likely that key EPA rules that aim to curb climate pollution from the power industry will be upheld."
	25	+And those rules—namely the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which aims to reduce carbon pollution from power plants—are necessary for the United States to deliver on the promises made at the COP21 climate summit in Paris in December. Without the CPP, Upton argued, "the U.S. would be left without a credible plan for fulfilling its pledge to reduce its climate pollution by a little more than a quarter in 2025 compared with 2005 levels."
	26	+One of Scalia's final acts as a Supreme Court justice was to vote in favor of an unprecedented stay on the CPP until it has been reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with arguments set for June 2.
	27	+The D.C. Circuit is likely to issue a decision on the Clean Power Plan this fall, which would put the rule back in front of the Supreme Court in spring 2017.
	28	+"What happens then will depend on whether the court's now vacant ninth seat has been filled and, if so, by whom," Jack Lienke, a lawyer with the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, wrote on Tuesday. "But in most of the possible scenarios, the EPA faces considerably better odds than it did with Scalia on the bench."
	29	+There's something in the air...
	30	+If a new justice is confirmed before President Barack Obama leaves office, "it does seem fair to assume that an Obama appointee will be more likely to join with the four liberals to uphold the Clean Power Plan than to vote with the four remaining conservatives to strike it down," Lienke said. The shakiest scenario would be if Obama's successor were to get Scalia's replacement through the Senate in time to weigh in on the CPP. That would be good news for environmentalists if the next president is a Democrat. But even if a Republican wins in November and gets a conservative nominee onto the bench, "the EPA would be no worse off than it was in the immediate aftermath of the stay," Lienke continued. "The court would once again be made up of five conservatives and four liberals, and EPA's best bet would once again be to convince Kennedy or Roberts to break ranks." Or, Lienke concluded: Finally, it's possible that Scalia's seat will still be vacant when the Clean Power Plan reaches the Supreme Court. In that scenario, the most likely result is an even split between the four liberals and four remaining conservatives. And a 4-4 vote results in an automatic affirmance of the decision below, which, in this case, would be the DC Circuit's. Of course, the DC Circuit hasn't made its decision yet, and we can't know for sure what it will be. But the panel of judges assigned to the case is generally viewed as favorable to the EPA, because two of the three were appointed by Democrats—one by President Clinton and the other by Obama himself. Furthermore, the New York Times wrote on Tuesday, "If the Senate were to confirm whomever President Obama nominates to succeed Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative justices on the bench, the Supreme Court would probably become more sensitive to the imperative to combat climate change. That’s not just good news for the Clean Power Plan. It could open the door to more aggressive policies." Given these stakes, it's not surprising that green groups are applying heavy scrutiny to potential nominees, such as federal appellate court judge Sri Srinivasan, who has emerged at the front of the pack of possible Scalia replacements. The 48-year-old Indian-American has an "inspiring biography," Politico reports on Wednesday. But, reporter Elana Schor continues, "his history of representing large corporations runs the risk of alienating Obama allies looking to gauge his still-developing record on key liberal priorities." Srinivasan's work on cases "in which he defended ExxonMobil and the mining company Rio Tinto have raised particular objections from environmentalists," Politico writes. "He also represented that enduring symbol of corporate excess, former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, in the appeal of the executive’s fraud and conspiracy convictions." Jamie Henn, of 350.org, told Politico that Srinivasan's work for Exxon was a "deeply disturbing" aspect of a "mixed" resume. Jane Kleeb, of Bold Nebraska, put it more starkly. "Any judge that sides with Big Oil over the American people has no place on our Supreme Court," she said in an email to the publication. Still, as Todd Aagaard, vice dean and professor at Villanova University School of Law, told Environment and Energy Publishing, "While all of the nominees would give environmental advocates a fair shot, I doubt any of them would automatically incline to favor the 'pro-environmental' side in a case." Yet "if you look closely at Scalia’s legacy on climate change, it’s hard to picture his replacement (even a Republican appointee!) harboring a more willful disregard for science," Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist and staff writer at Slate, wrote on Monday. "Climate activists, who are increasingly a major part of the electorate, now have a big boost to push for bolder promises from Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders," Holthaus continued. "Backed by a Supreme Court that would presumably place greater value on the planet’s health, there’s nowhere to go but full-speed ahead in the race to reduce humanity’s carbon footprint."
	31	+
	32	+Global warming definitively causes extinction
	33	+Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security,” International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/, Accessed 7/11/16)
	34	+Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off sometime late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the carbon balance. Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of underground carbon fuels. Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand to extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary one-year calendar. The release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The implications of climate change is the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the damage. This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound. We know of the complex set of interrelated national and global security risks that are a result of global warming and the velocity at which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late. Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some, confused many, and polarized politics. It has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not limited to droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests that climate change is already affecting human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of rising sea levels, heat and storms. Climate change affects all natural systems. It impacts temperature and consequently it affects water and weather patterns. It contributes to desertification, deforestation and acidification of the oceans. Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial river water supplies are reduced because glaciers are retreating. As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of less temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and also there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card could be runaway climate change due to the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four times more than all the carbon released through human activity thus far. The planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed. It is human intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically: An increased surface temperature, coupled with more severe weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats to our agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of insect borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus. Rising sea levels will increasingly threaten our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the planet – depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut critical natural food systems which would result in reduced rations. Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus the impact is not only to the environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead to conflict and thus impact national security. Resource wars are inevitable as countries respond, adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources. These wars have arguably already started and will continue in the future because climate change will force countries to act for national survival; the so-called Climate Wars. As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a picture of a world in turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from declaring climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an irritant, not a shock for national security systems. In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of 11 senior retired generals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate Change. Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team found that climate change was a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts which suggested the following. Europe would experience some fracturing because of border migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by the United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will increase pressure to emigrate across borders.” Asia would suffer from “threats to water and the spread of infectious disease. ” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate across the intelligence community and to focus policy. In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of Climate Change. The report concludes that climate change is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and the authors appeal to the security community, the entire government and the American people to not only build resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to integrate climate change across all strategy and planning. The calm of the 2007 report is replaced by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no man.” The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that: Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term risk only if improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on ways to stabilize climate change. The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate Armageddon which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described: A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the World Bank which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development, which will ultimately foster conflict. Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions (carbon emission in this case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and culture figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across multiple layers of consumption, investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-30 21:58:07.345

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Palos Verdes Le Barillec Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Politics DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Meadows Misc