Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[27]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[27]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,13 +1,0 @@
1		-Civil Rights decisions are “flypaper” for movements—they convince people that litigation is an avenue for social change. Yeazell 04
2		-Yeazell, 2004 professor of law @ UCLA, 2004 (Stephen, Vanderbilt Law Review, November, 2004, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975; Lexis
3		-First, Brown and the civil rights litigation movement helped create a renewed belief, not just in the law, but more specifically in litigation as a noble calling and as an avenue for social change. That belief lies open to challenge, and it can leave students and lawyers frustrated at the distance between the aspirations that brought them to law school and the world of practice as they perceive it. But whether or not it is well-founded, this belief, with roots traceable to Brown and civil rights litigation, has endured for several generations. Thus, Brown reshaped the aspirations of lawyers in ways that are still important.
4		-Legal reforms do not solve – they only make us complacent in the police state. Freeman 14:
5		-Ademo, 5-21-2014, "Understanding, Surviving, and Resisting the Police State," Cop Block, http://www.copblock.org/54420/understanding-surviving-and-resisting-the-police-state/
6		-We now live in a world where it is legal for police officers to murder not only animals, but innocent people, use the threat of force to coerce peaceful people into submission, and not only avoid punishment, but are ENCOURAGED to act this way. We live in a police state, and before we figure out how to fix it, we have to understand how this situation came to be. It’s easy to focus our anger only on the ones actually committing the violence, but cops didn’t just wake up one day and decide to start violently oppressing people. Injustice flows from the top down. What we’re seeing today is largely the result of the politicians WANTING the people living in fear of the police, WANTING the police brutality which causes so many people to quietly obey whatever arbitrary, oppressive legislation the politicians decide to enact. So while we should definitely be condemning those who blindly follow orders, the ones giving the orders shouldn’t be let off the hook either, and most of us know this, which is why a lot of people, in an effort to fight against tyranny and government abuses, focus on the political process, on voting, campaigning and petitioning. This approach basically amounts to begging the government for freedom, which to me has two major flaws: first, it has a completely horrible track record of ever achieving freedom, and second, it pretty much tells the politicians that we accept that we can only be free if and when they tell us we’re allowed to. I don’t know about you, but I don’t need legislation to tell me exactly how free I am. Now a lot of people ask what the alternative is, how, besides voting and petitioning can we prevent or stop tyranny? After centuries of one society after another voting themselves further into oppression, what we’re left with, our power, is resistance and disobedience. This can come in many forms – some people quietly find ways to circumvent or avoid the powers that be and their laws; some practice civil disobedience, and some forcibly resist. However, a lot of people can’t bring themselves to disobey at all, even quietly and passively, because they’ve been thoroughly convinced that, while it’s okay to ASK the politicians to change their laws, it’s never okay to disobey them, no matter how immoral and unjust. Unfortunately, a lot of the people who will never disobey a command happen to be walking around in a blue uniform with a shiny badge and false sense of authority. Police like to pretend that their job is to “protect and serve.” It isn’t. Their job is to forcibly control the rest of us in whatever way the politicians tell them to. The politicians make up commands, call them laws, and their hired guns–“law ENFORCERS”–hurt any who disobey. Police know this, which is why you will often hear them say things like, “I don’t make the law, I only enforce it,” with the implication being that they aren’t to blame, because they’re just following orders and doing as they’re told. But that excuse was invalid when the Nazis used it, and it’s invalid today. It’s also completely cowardly to deny responsibility for your OWN actions, just because someone else told you to do something. How do you suppose the police would respond to some common thief saying, “Don’t blame me for mugging this old lady; someone else told me to?” They would respond exactly how we should respond to it when they use the excuse: You are responsible for what YOU do.
7		-2 Impacts:
8		-A) Legal reforms merely empower the police state- turns case. Collins 14:
9		-Michael Collins, 12-9-2014, "When Police ‘Reforms’ Only Legitimize Police Abuses," No Publication, http://inthesetimes.com/article/17427/when_police_reforms_only_legitimize_police_abuses - Michael Collins is the vice president of the In These Times board and a community organizer and journalist in Chicago. His interests include popular education and building foundations for a new economy.
10		-While these actions may seem like needed steps towards transparency, another round of reports and high-tech toys will not change policing and its role in sustaining what Michelle Alexander calls “the new Jim Crow.” In fact, liberal-minded reforms such as Obama’s have a long history of legitimatizesing state-sanctioned surveillance and violence. We’ve been here before The Kerner Commission Report, a seminal 1967 work on urban unrest in America quoted frequently, estimated that 50 of urban riots in the 1960s were initiated by police. In the wake of broad civil rebellion, liberal Democrats, Dixiecrats and Republicans joined forces to address riots, crime and civil disobedience. Using a formula that has been repeated across federal and state legislatures, lawmakers sought to quiet domestic unrest through a never-ending process of “police professionalization.” Naomi Murakawa, a professor at Princeton, studies public policy and race in America. In her book The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America, Murakawa details how the catchall term of “professionalization” obscured the very real differences in this unwieldy coalition: Consensus on police professionalization camouflaged differences on professionalism’s purpose: some saw police funding as a way to repressrioting and law breaking, others saw police funding as a way to suppress impetuses for rioting by improving “police-community” relations. Some saw funding as complementary to civil rights, while conservatives saw it as compensatory for court procedural hamstringing.” Given the diverse goals of police professionalization and the compromises required to pass any set of reforms, the resulting 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act ended up provideding the tools and resources for even greater police violence. Instead of solving the root causes of unrest and police violence, the program initiated direct transfers of cash and equipment to local police departments to procure everything from radios to helicopters. Unsurprisingly, in the South, discretionary funding was used to suppress black political agitation. In a federal legislature dominated by Democrats, led by President Lyndon Johnson, Louisiana was given funding to purchase a tank—which was then used to attack the New Orleans Black Panthers. While some liberal commentators have called for more training of the Ferguson Police Department, the St. Louis “unified command” of 1,000 area police received a total of roughly 5,000 hours of training to “deal with potential unrest.” The very process of “professionalizing” the police simply means they’ll get more tools to continue their mission of repressing poor populations—not that they’ll have a new mission. What do police do? Most police departments have a simple motto: to serve and protect. But in a country with an economic system that produces ever-expanding inequality and ongoing racial oppression, the job of police is to serve the political elites and protect the class interests of the wealthy. Or, as former Black Panther and 43 year political prisoner Eddie Conway recently said, “They police look at the poor communities, both white and black, as a hostile war zone, and they act accordingly.” Police are part of a complex set of actors and institutions that work to create a vast class of unemployed (and unemployable) people who are ripe for exploitation by banks and corporations. Attempts to prove that “black lives matter” by pushing for increased police funding and perhaps some diversity training ignore decades’ worth of data suggestsing that liberal interventions in policing have had no impact on police violence. Brad Smith of Wayne State University published a 2003 studydetailing the effect of the racial make-up of police departments on police homicides. His findings were stark: “More diversified departments do not have significantly lower levels of police-caused homicides.” He goes on to report that “regardless of who is carrying out the police function, police will always be seen as representatives of the larger establishment. As such, tensions between police and citizens may be a function of the police role.”
11		-B) Litigation deflects attention for better strategies of reform that are more effective. Van Schaack 04
12		-Van Schaack, 2004 Assistant Prof. of Law @ Santa Clara University School of Law, Vanderbilt Law Review, November, 2004, (Beth, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 2305; Lexis
13		-Although litigation can provoke and promote other processes of social change, it can also inhibit the development of, deflect attention  *2344  and resources away from, or even undermine other strategies for social change that may be more efficacious or durable. These alternative strategies include reparations strategies through the political process; n199 direct action; transnational advocacy in countries where abuses are prevalent; n200 grassroots educational campaigns; traditional human rights advocacy based upon fact-gathering and shaming; the development of monitoring bodies and international regulatory standards, such as environmental or labor codes of conduct for extraterritorial activities; n201 and the creation and promotion of international institutions. n202 The technical, rarified and inaccessible nature of litigation may do little to contribute to the growth of grassroots social movements in certain contexts and communities, especially where individuals are not accustomed to invoking judicial processes to bring about social change. n203 Likewise, lawyers may actually displace natural leaders within community groups, leading to the disempowerment, and even demise, of the group. n204 In addition, litigation (and its attendant legalisms such as standing rules, statutes of limitation, or justiciability doctrines) may diffuse political or moral claims rather than empower potential political constituencies.Indeed, litigation in the United States may ultimately contravene or undermine the strategies of local activists where it is not part of a campaign at the grassroots level in the targeted country.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-11-19 19:30:41.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Dan Alessandro

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Fenwick SN

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-21

Round

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

Team

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

Title

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

Tournament

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