Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[48]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[48]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,7 +1,0 @@
1		-Interpretation: The Aff may not specify a particular method of limiting qualified immunity
2		-Violation: They specify ___________.
3		-Net benefits:
4		-1 Limits – they allow way too many Affs. People can specify any way to limit it – there could be a sliding scale, repealing the “clearly established” element, a full out prohibition, and more. Further, they can specify down to ways of police being punished which means even more Affs.
5		-Bernick 15. Evan Bernick is the Assistant Director of the Center for Judicial Engagement at the Institute for Justice, the national law firm for liberty. He works to educate the public and persuade judges about the need to enforce all of the Constitution’s limits on government in every case. Before joining IJ, Bernick was a Visiting Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, where he focused on the problem of overcriminalization— the use of the criminal law to target conduct that most people would not expect to be illegal in the first place. He chronicled stories of victims of overcriminalization and wrote op-eds, issue briefs, and legal memoranda about constitutional law, sentencing policy, and police militarization, among other subjects. Bernick’s work has appeared in such places as Time, USA Today, Fox News.com, The Washington Times, The Chicago-Sun Times, National Review Online, The Daily Signal and Engage: The Journal of the Federalist Society Practice Groups. Bernick received his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School in 2011. He graduated with honors from the University of Chicago in 2008. , 5-6-2015, "Why Do Police Get Immunity?," No Publication, https://fee.org/articles/to-hold-police-accountable-dont-give-them-immunity/ //RS
6		-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.
7		-That’s key to clash – we can only have a specific productive discussion if we have prep specific to their aff, underlimiting means there’s no way we’ll have specific prep to each Aff – things like court clog or overdeterene don’t link to an aff that defends a specific enforcement mechanism like sliding scale, nor would a relations politics da. That’s a voting issue - only reason we debate is for argument interaction, thus comes first. You can get education from school and if debate were about being fair, we’d just flip a coin because that’d be the fairest scenario, but no one does that means fairness isn’t a voter. Substantive Engagement is the only voter unique to LD.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-12-03 22:59:36.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Chris Castillo

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-McNeil PV

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-45

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Westwood Shhah Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Theory - Must spec mechanism

Tournament

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