Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[40]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[41]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[40]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-05 19:49:49.49
	1	+2016-11-05 19:49:49.0

Caselist.CitesClass[41]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,19 @@
	1	+The latest poll proves Hillary’s lead over Trump has narrowed after FBI revelations. Kirk and Scott 11/2
	2	+The Telegraph, Ashley Kirk and Patrick Scott, US election 2016 polls and odds tracker: Latest forecast Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump narrows after FBI revelations, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/us-election-2016-polls-and-odds-tracker-latest-forecast/
	3	+
	4	+The news that the FBI has reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private server to send, receive and store government emails has handed Donald Trump an unexpected boost ahead of next Tuesday.
	5	+The FBI has obtained a warrant to begin searching newly discovered emails belonging to Huma Abedin, a top aide of Hillary Clinton, with Clinton's use of emails also in the spotlight.
	6	+There is no sign that this new investigation will be completed by election day and it seems that Clinton will have to fight the final week of her campaign with unspecified allegations hanging over her.
	7	+This is ideal for Trump who was shown to be as many as 14 points behind Clinton in some polls before this latest scandal.
	8	+Clinton has been ahead almost continuously in the Telegraph's poll of polls, which takes an average of the last five polls published on RealClearPolitics.
	9	+She still retains a lead, but this could change in the coming days with some polls now showing a far closer race.
	10	+
	11	+Actions in favor of anti-police sentiments will give Trump that last great surge, recent article concludes – Carl 9/22:
	12	+Jeremy Carl, Jeremy Carl is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. 9-22-2016, "Will the Riots in Charlotte Help Elect Donald Trump?," National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440277/law-and-order-will-riots-charlotte-help-elect-donald-trump Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440277/law-and-order-will-riots-charlotte-help-elect-donald-trump
	13	+With every wave of anti-police violence and rioting, the chance of a backlash from fed-up voters grows. Watching the depressing news of rioting in my beautiful home state of North Carolina, I’m beginning to think that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are secretly conspiring to get Donald Trump elected president. For it would be hard to imagine a narrative playing better into the “law and order” theme Trump launched at the GOP convention than yet another racially motivated riot against the police, fed by persistently false rumors and outright lies from the “community” and irresponsible rhetoric from the federal government and the media. And it would be hard to imagine a better advertisement for how great America isn’t right now than the wave of anti-police violence that we are currently enduring. The aftermath of the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, a man with convictions in multiple states including assault with a deadly weapon, and further arrests on numerous charges including assault with intent to kill, has proven sadly predictable. The riots in Charlotte unfolded in the wake of a video live-streamed on Facebook by Scott’s daughter, who was not at the scene, who among other choice bits of eloquence, informed viewers that “they shot my motherf***in daddy four times for being black.” The officer doing the shooting in the case in question, Brentley Vinson, was himself African American, suggesting perhaps that the typical left-wing strategy of equating any police action against an African American as signaling the impending rebirth of the KKK will not be entirely successful in this case. (Of course, alleged witnesses were spreading rumors, reported credulously by the media, that the shooter was white, just as they spread equally false rumors that Mr. Scott was reading a book and was unarmed when shot, and that he had his hands in the air. Eyewitness accounts and video of Scott’s gun emerged subsequently.) Officer Vinson, the son of a Charlotte police officer, was a recent graduate of Liberty University in Virginia, an Evangelical Christian school, where he was a captain of the football team. ”Brent has always been a great guy founded on good morals. I find it very hard to believe that he would gun down an innocent man,” one of his Liberty teammates told CNN. Michael Scurlock, a former NFL player who had befriended Officer Vinson in Bible study, described Vinson as distraught after the shooting, telling CNN, “It’s nothing easy, and I know that he expressed that through the emotions of his voice, over the phone.” Vinson’s high-school football coach told the Charlotte Observer, “We need more Brent Vinsons, that type of person, in our communities. . . . He’s a natural leader and one of those guys who always had the best interest of others before himself.” Sounds very suspicious — he’s probably one of those alt-right types. Charlotte police chief Kerr Putney, also African American, was unsurprisingly tired of having to fight back against misinformation in the media and within the “community.” “It’s time to change the narrative,” he said, “because I can tell you from the facts that the story’s a little bit different as to how it’s been portrayed so far, especially through social media.” Meanwhile, Charlotte descended into anarchy, as rioters looted numerous stores, stopped cars on the interstate and assaulted drivers, looted tractor-trailers, and set fires, forcing a major freeway to close and North Carolina governor Pat McCrory to call out the National Guard. RELATED: Anti-Cop Rioters Are the Vanguard of the ‘No Lives Matter’ Movement Unlike the lawless rioters, I won’t rush to judgment on what exactly transpired in the encounter between Officer Vinson and Mr. Scott. While the most explosive claims, which caused the riots, have almost certainly been proven false, we need to let the process play out to find out whether the shooting was justified, as it appears to have been, or whether Officer Vinson was in error. But even if the shooting were unjustified, it would not excuse even one minute of the lawless rioting we are seeing. Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton have inflamed racial tensions for political gain repeatedly over the past eight years. Speaking about the riots in Charlotte, Lynch said,“They have once again highlighted — in the most vivid and painful terms — the real divisions that still persist in this nation between law enforcement and communities of color.” And why do they persist, Attorney General Lynch? In part because you have continued to inflame them, rather than tell African Americans the hard truths they need to hear. Racial incitement by Trump? Even Trump’s most outrageous statements haven’t been the equivalent of having rioters shouting “hands up, don’t shoot” as rioters and looters in Charlotte did, repeating the false narrative of Ferguson’s Michael Brown that was relentlessly pushed by left-wing media and government officials. At a campaign rally yesterday, Hillary Clinton said, “There is still much we don’t know about what happened . . . but we do know that we have two more names to add to a list of African Americans killed by police officers in these encounters,” cleverly imputing, without directly saying so, that all of these deaths were unjustified. “It’s unbearable, and it needs to become intolerable,” Clinton continued, before tossing off a few meaningless pro-police sentiments to give her some plausible deniability. “Intolerable.” That’s an interesting choice of words. Well, when I watch these videos of lawless rioting in my home state, with people shot, more than 20 police officers assaulted and hospitalized, windows smashed, and stores looted, that is intolerable. It’s intolerable, Hillary Clinton, that business owners of all races who have invested in Charlotte had their property destroyed by thugs and rioters. It’s intolerable, Hillary Clinton, that honest journalists who report the truth about these incidents struggle to find work, while left-wing racial arsonists command the front pages of our most prestigious newspapers and the top spots at our TV networks. But most of all, it’s intolerable, Hillary Clinton, that brave law-enforcement officers, particularly African-American law-enforcement officers, such as Charlotte police chief Kerr Putney, Dallas police chief David Brown, and Milwaukee county sheriff David Clarke have seen themselves and their men repeatedly slandered as racists by you and your Democratic cronies, all so that you can whip up enough racial anger among African Americans to bolster your cynical quest for political power. In many ways, Donald Trump, for all of his many flaws, represents a backlash of a silent majority of voters, looking at the endless race-baiting of the Obama years, seeing its continuation in Hillary’s candidacy, and saying, “Enough!” If that group, which grows with each outrageous riot, proves large enough to propel Trump to the White House, he will ironically have Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to thank for the presidency it.
	14	+The next president is make it or break it for warming—a GOP presidency will undermine all possible progress on warming.
	15	+Neuhauser 15, energy, environment and STEM reporter for U.S. News and World Report. (Alan, “The Climate Change Election”, August 14, 2015, US News, http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/08/14/the-2016-election-is-critical-for-stopping-climate-change)
	16	+For as long as Americans have voted and pundits have bloviated, each presidential election cycle has seemed The Most Important in All History. Next year, though, may truly – actually, seriously – be different, if climate scientists are right. The next candidate Americans send to the Oval Office, experts say, may also be the very last who can avert catastrophe from climate change. "It is urgent and the timeframe is critical and it has to be right now," says Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown Law. "We can't lose another four years, much less eight years." This is not an overnight ice age or a rise of the apes. But global warming is already here, parching the American West, flooding coastal cities, strengthening storms, erasing species and inflaming armed conflict, with a rise of just 0.85 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels. And it's going to get worse, experts say. Last year, a U.N. panel of scientists predicted the world had until 2050 to slash emissions by as much as 70 percent to keep temperatures from rising another 1.15 degrees by the end of the century. That's the threshold of an unstoppable cycle of Arctic and Antarctic melting, the release of heat-trapping gases that had been caught in the ice, more warming, more melting, more warming, more melting – until the glaciers and ice caps disappear. But some researchers – including the man who first presented the facts on climate change to Congress in 1988 – say that that tipping point may come even sooner, perhaps as early as 2036: Humans, in short, are having an even greater impact than expected. "Sea level projections and upcoming United Nations meetings in Paris are far too sluggish compared with the magnitude and speed of sea level changes," the scientist, Columbia professor James Hansen, wrote Wednesday in a QandA on the web forum Reddit, discussing a study he published in July. The needed changes are monumental: Halting climate change and heading off its worst consequences is going to require a wholesale switch from fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas to renewables like wind and solar – potentially upending utilities, energy producers and construction contractors, the sort of change "of the magnitude of the invention of the steam engine or the electrification of society," says Jules Kortenhorst, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonpartisan energy research group. "How quickly can we transform one of the most complex industrial systems – our energy system – across the globe in order to move toward low carbon?" he asks . "There is absolutely no doubt we have to act now." This presents an election – and a choice – with no historical analogues. "This will be a make-or-break presidency as far as our ability to avert a climate change catastrophe," says Michael Mann, meteorology professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, whose "hockey-stick" shaped graph warned of sharply rising emissions and temperatures. Pick any issue throughout history, he and others argue, none has shared the three qualities that make climate change stand apart: its threat to the entire planet, the short window to respond, and how sharply it has divided the two parties' candidates. "Republicans and Democrats have argued over issues for years, but I can't think of an example where one party didn't even say that the issue exists," says Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University who has advised Evangelical and conservative climate action groups, and who has urged policymakers to address warming. Four of the five Democratic candidates has pledged or supported Obama administration efforts to cut the heat-trapping emissions that cause climate change: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee. Former Sen. Jim Webb has said he'd expand the use of fossil fuels and once voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating certain greenhouse gas emissions. Among the Republicans, eight of the 17 candidates have hedged: Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Jim Gilmore, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki and Rand Paul have acknowledged that humans do contribute to global warming, but have questioned or stopped short of saying how much – a position at odds with the findings of a vast majority of scientists. "The climate is changing; I don't think anybody can argue it's not. Human activity has contributed to it," Bush said in an email interview with Bloomberg BNA in July – a statement that notably did not mention how much humans were at fault. During a campaign stop in New Hampshire in June, he had previously told listeners, "The climate is changing, whether men are doing it or not," one month after calling it "arrogant" to say climate science is settled. The rest of the GOP field – including three senators who rejected a January amendment tying human activity to climate change – has dismissed the issue outright. Paul also voted against the amendment. "As a scientist it's very frustrating to hear politicians basically saying, 'This isn't true,' or, 'They're just making it up to get government money,'" Hayhoe says. "A thermometer is not Democrat or Republican. What observations are telling us is not political – it is what it is." And there are conservative solutions for warming. Some party members, in fact, see it as an inherently Republican issue: Carbon emissions, for example, distort the free market, forcing others to pay the higher and indirect costs of climate change (storm recovery, disaster relief) plus the health costs associated with air pollution. "We allow the coal industry to socialize its costs, and we conservatives don't like allowing people to socialize anything," says former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis, who now explores free-market solutions to climate change as head of the Energy and Enterprise Institute at George Mason University. A revenue-neutral carbon tax, one that does not support other programs and instead goes back to households, could fix that distortion, he and others argue. "The question is not, 'Is there going to be a tax on carbon?' It's, 'Do you want a tax that you have a voice in and control, or do you want to keep writing checks after disasters that you have no control over?'" says retired Rear Admiral David Titley, who has advised some of the GOP presidential candidates and directs the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Penn State University. "That $60 billion relief bill for Hurricane Sandy that passed very quickly through a Republican-led House, did you get a vote on that tax? Because that's a tax." Yet Inglis, himself is a living example of what can happen to conservatives who call for climate action. The recipient of the JFK Profile in Courage Award in April, he was unseated in the Republican primary in 2010 after shifting his position on global warming. "Republicans say, 'Look at what happened to him when he said it was real. Do you want that to happen to you?'" Hayhoe describes. Oil, gas and coal companies, along with billionaire Libertarian industrialists David and Charles Koch, rank among the biggest campaign donors, and often seem as allergic to new taxes as a bubble boy to fresh pollen. But popular sentiment among voters appears to be changing: Most Republican voters say they support climate action, and last week, Shell did not renew its membership in the Koch-backed American Legislative Exchange Council because of the group's opposition to climate action. Even the climate statements by the eight Republicans who have hedged on warming, vague as they were, may signify a kind of progress – especially during the primaries, when candidates play to their parties' more extreme bases. "In the Great Recession in 2010, it was this very atheistic position with regard to climate change: 'We don't believe,'" Inglis says. "Then, in the 2014 cycle, 'I'm not a scientist,' that was an agnostic position. These are data points on a trend line toward a tipping point." Republicans can exploit a distinct advantage on climate action, too, he adds: Voters tend to support the presidents who buck party stereotypes. "Nixon goes to China, Bill Clinton signs welfare reform – the country will trust a conservative to touch climate," Inglis argues. But climate scientists, environmental advocates and Democrats remain deeply skeptical. The most recent Republican president, for one, backpedaled on his 2000 campaign pledge to rein-in carbon emissions. Campaign donations remain hugely influential, and as Republican candidates lambaste the environmental agenda of the Obama administration, stopping climate change will actually require they expand upon Obama initiatives: resist industry pressure to slow the roll-out of tighter fuel standards for cars, push states to reduce emissions from their power sectors and uphold and ratchet-up international commitments to slow carbon emissions. There's also the Supreme Court: with four Supreme Court justices now over the age of 70, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg pushing 80, the next president will likely have the chance to nominate new jurists to the court – a court that will almost certainly decide challenges to various environmental actions aimed at slowing global warming. "If we are going to avoid catastrophic, irreversible climate change impacts, we have to be ramping down our carbon emissions dramatically in the years ahead. The current administration has begun that process, but our next president must not only continue but build on that progress," Mann says. It is on the global stage where perhaps the spotlight – and climate scientists' hopes and expectations – will shine brightest. In December, negotiators from nearly 200 nations will meet in Paris to hammer-out an international climate accord. It is expected to include commitments from China and India, heavy polluters spurred to rein-in their emissions and invest in clean energy by America's own commitment to slash carbon emissions from its power sector. "The rest of the world is going to expect the U.S. to live up to its commitment made at the Paris meeting, no matter who is in the White House," says Henrik Selin, professor of international relations at the Pardee School of Global Studies at Boston University. "If you have a president who comes in and starts rolling back the Obama initiatives, you're going to have international leaders being very unhappy about this – and they are not just countries, they are trading partners. This is not just a domestic issue, it's also very much a foreign policy issue." And so far, he and others argue, none of the Republican candidates have offered a clear vision on climate, let alone any plan to slow warming. "If we want to get to that low-carbon future, we have to agree that's where we're going to go, and then we can fight over the speed at which we're going to get there," Kortenhorst, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, says. As David Sandalow, who held senior posts in the State Department and Energy Department under Obama and is an inaugural fellow at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, describes: "There's a very big difference between electing a candidate who's committed to seriously addressing this problem and one who isn't. The implications of failing to address the problem in the next four years could be very serious."
	17	+Warming causes extinction.
	18	+Don Flournoy 12, Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center and Don is a PhD and MA from UT, former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University, former Associate Dean at SUNY and Case Institute of Technology, Former Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, currently Professor of Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications, Ohio University, “Solar Power Satellites,” January 2012, Springer Briefs in Space Development, p. 10-11
	19	+In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, “The evidence of global warming is alarming,” noting the potential for a catastrophic planetary climate change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were was engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into Earth’s biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift in its energy supply. “This,” he writes, “is because the risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the extinction of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances” (Hsu 2010 ).

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-05 19:49:49.951

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Connor Riano

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake JD

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+22

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Chen Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+ND - DA - Elections

Tournament

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