Summary

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

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[18]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-20 14:06:34.875
	1	+2016-11-20 14:06:34.0

Caselist.CitesClass[19]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,20 @@
	1	+====Democrat Foster Campbell is going to win the Senate runoff in Louisiana now- national focus and anti-trump====
	2	+**Brown 11/14**
	3	+("A Runoff Election in Louisiana Could Help Democrats in the Senate", Kara Brown, political writer, 11/14/2016, The Slot, http://theslot.jezebel.com/a-runoff-election-in-louisiana-could-help-democrats-in-1788959475)
	4	+
	5	+====While an easy Campbell victory is an uphill battle, many are noting that he does have a legitimate shot at an upset. Louisiana already has a Democratic (if pro-life) governor in John Bel Edwards, who replaced noted idiot Bobby Jindal at the beginning of this year. Additionally, with a national focus on this seat, Foster has the chance to pull wider support from the many Americans who are upset over the fact that, you know, the majority of people in this country did not actually vote for Donald Trump to be our next president. Republicans are already working to extinguish any possibility of a Campbell win. Some are also considering it a preview of the rallying and hard work that needs to be done in the 2018 midterm elections to wrestle any bit of power we can away from Trump and his band of merry white supremacists.====
	6	+
	7	+====The GOP will use the aff to show that Dems are weak on Law and Order to win the election.====
	8	+**Zeitz 16**
	9	+(Josh, 7/18, politics and history @ Cambridge, "How Trump Is Recycling Nixon's 'Law and Order' Playbook", www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/donald-trump-law-and-order-richard-nixon-crime-race-214066~~~~#ixzz4P0p4CFd3)
	10	+In the wake of recent tragedies in Dallas and Baton Rouge, where eight police officers have been gunned down in the space of just one week, and with clear reference to terrorist attacks in Europe and the Middle East, Donald Trump's campaign has signaled his determination to make the GOP the "law-and-order party." Indeed, the theme for the opening night of the Republican National Convention is "Make Our Country Safe Again." Safe from what? By almost any measure, the United States is safer than it has been in decades. Notwithstanding localized spikes in urban homicides, for the past decade the crime and violent crime rates have hovered at near-50 year lows. And despite the recent tragedies in Dallas and Baton Rouge, the same is true of the number of police officers killed in the line of duty. If the country is calm by comparison, why would Trump sound a cry for "law and order" once again? The answer may lie with the first successful soothsayer of the "Silent Majority," Richard Nixon, who in 1968 created the very playbook that Trump seems to be recycling. Nixon came to power in an era of profound discord, marked by urban riots, anti-war protests (some, violent), and an unraveling of longstanding social and cultural mores. Then as now, crime was a powerful proxy for other concerns. But even with all that to worry about, Nixon's appeal wasn't just about crime. His political insight was that crime was a powerful proxy for other anxieties. For a quarter-decade, Republican candidates adopted Nixon's subtle but discernable brand of backlash politics. As crime rates plummeted in the 1990s, and as America became a more racially and culturally diverse country, the old politics no longer worked. Yet Trump has reactivated them—and to what effect, we don't yet know. Running for president in 1968, Richard Nixon sought to exploit very legitimate popular anxiety over crime and disorder. Needing to distance himself from far-right third-party opponent George Wallace, whose own law-and-order venom was a transparent cover for racial incitement, Nixon walked a thin line between statesmanship and demagoguery, promising to speak for the "forgotten Americans … non-shouters, the non-demonstrators, that are not racists or sick, that are not guilty of crime that plagues the land. This I say to you tonight is the real voice of America in 1968." By focusing incessantly on racially coded issues like crime and urban unrest, Nixon signaled to white voters that he offered a respectable alternative to Wallace. Campaigning throughout the upper South, he endorsed the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which banned segregation in public schools, but also assured white voters that he felt it was wrong for the federal government to "force a local community to carry out what a federal administrator or bureaucrat may think is best for that local community." Even the conservative Wall Street Journal criticized Nixon's "harsh and strident efforts to capitalize on deep-seated discontent and frustration. This is the Richard Nixon who tells a whistle-stop rally in Deshler, Ohio that in the 45 minutes since his train left Lima, one murder, two rapes and 45 major crimes of violence had occurred in this country—and that 'Hubert Humphrey defends the policies under which we have seen crime rise to this point.'" The former vice president was peddling a brand of "extremism ~~that~~ seems not only unnecessary but self-defeating. … In a society already deeply divided by fear and mistrust, Mr. Nixon's hard line seems sure to deepen the divisions." Nixon was not the first Republican candidate to fuse rhetoric about law and order to a racial message. As early as 1964 conservatives began trying to exploit grassroots concerns about integration by using code words like "welfare," "morality" and "crime" to tap into white—and suburban—racial resentments. That year, conservative Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign sponsored a 30-minute televised infomercial entitled Choice, which juxtaposed imagery of nude dancers and pornographic literature with film footage of black urban rioters. The subtext was unmistakable: the same liberal forces that were unraveling the moral fabric of American society were driving racial minorities to lash out violently against public authority and private property. Though Goldwater claimed to be personally opposed to segregation, he played fast and loose with racial incitement. The New York Times observed that as the fall campaign wore on, Goldwater "began to link directly his 'law and order' issue—in which he deplores crime and violence—with the civil rights movement, mentioning the two in juxtaposition." During a speech in Minneapolis, he "mentioned 'gang rape' and civil rights disturbances in the same paragraph." But it was Richard Nixon who whitewashed the law-and-order message and used it to tap a broader array of popular anxieties, including but not limited to integration. In November 1969, less than a year into his first term as president, Nixon appealed to the raw emotions of Middle America. "I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days," he said. Facing the audience, the president asked for the support of "the great silent majority" in securing peace with honor in Southeast Asia. Though the November 3 speech concerned Vietnam, internal White House memoranda reveal that Nixon understood that foreign and domestic policy were inextricably linked. He was eager "to orient the Silent Majority toward issues other than foreign policy (e.g.: inflation, crime, law and order, etc.) and then to increase support for the president's foreign and domestic proposals." As president, Nixon focused intensely on law-and-order themes, subtly tapping into the fears of white Southerners, as well as many white working-class Northerners, who associated the rise in crime with urban riots specifically, and African Americans more generally. Nixon recognized this connection when he privately reviewed one of his campaign's hard-hitting television ads in 1972 about urban crime and remarked, this "hits it right on the nose. It's all about law and order and the damn Negro-Puerto Rican groups out there." *** Nixon's appeal to law and order was carefully calculated.When the Silent Majority responded to his rhetoric, is was not responding to a phantom threat. Between 1960 and 1970 the national crime rate increased by 176 percent, a trend that continued unabated into the 1970s. Whereas the annual murder rate held steady at about five per 100,000 people throughout the 1940s and 1950s, after 1963 it began a steady climb, reaching 9.6 per 100,000 in 1975 and 10 per 100,000 by the early 1980s. Much of this spike had to do with the presence of an unusually large cohort of young people in the general population, an after effect of the post-war baby boom. But the Silent Majority was less interested in causes than effects. It was little wonder that audiences cheered actor Clint Eastwood in his 1971 title role as Dirty Harry, a no-nonsense police officer who shoots first and asks questions later. Even as the crime rate was soaring, the judiciary was becoming ever more solicitous of the rights of criminals. In the 1960s the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants must be informed of their constitutional rights upon arrest and could not stand trial without counsel. Other rulings made it more difficult for police officers to conduct searches and seizures without proper warrants. In a few cases the courts went so far as to assume control of entire state penal systems, some of which held prisoners in dangerous, inhumane conditions. However constitutionally sound these decisions were, they sat poorly with many Middle Americans who saw the courts as inveighing on the side of criminals rather than law-abiding taxpayers. Further contributing to popular frustration, many legal authorities in the late 1960s embraced the work of liberal criminologists and sociologists who claimed that America suffered a "crisis of over-criminalization." Many judges meted out softer sentences, while some states began liberalizing their juvenile justice systems to mainstream thousands of young offenders. As is the case today, preoccupation with lawlessness functioned as a catch-all for a wider array of concerns. As distressed as they were over rising crime rates, narcotics use, and welfare costs, the Silent Majority also worried about the general breakdown of civil order and authority. College-educated Americans were far more accepting than their parents of premarital sex, same-sex relationships and cohabitation between unmarried couples. This came as little surprise to anyone who had followed campus life in the sixties. But it wasn't just middle-class students who strayed from conventional norms. In wide-ranging surveys conducted in 1969 and 1973, pollster Daniel Yankelovich found that non-college educated youth also had a "greater difficulty in accepting authority—either from the boss in a work situation or from the police." On a subtle level, the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s had eroded popular faith in America's public institutions and traditions. College-educated or not, young people were less willing to conform in dress, grooming or manners to what society deemed normative. Most disconcertingly, only 24 percent of non-college educated youth, and 12 percent of college youth, responded that they could "willingly and easily" abide by laws with which they did not agree. In this context, it was not difficult to understand why 7,200 students were arrested for campus violence in the 1969-70 school year alone. Better than most politicians, Nixon understood how to tap the resentments of "The Middle Americans," roughly 100 million strong, whom Time named as Man and Woman of the Year in 1969. "Above all," the magazine found, "Middle America is a state of mind, a morality, a construct of values and prejudices and a complex of fears. The Man and Woman of the Year represent a vast, unorganized fraternity bound together by a roughly similar way of seeing things." Living in an era of urban unrest, civil rights protests and violent clashes over the war in Vietnam, Time's Middle Americans felt besieged. They were resentful of taxes, and fearful of crime and inflation. They "cherish, apprehensively, a system of values that the see assaulted and mocked everywhere." Neither left nor right, the Man and Woman of the Year were united by the "politics of againstness"—against big government but also against cuts in social services, against segregation but also against forced integration, against the war but also against the anti-war movement. Ultimately, the editors concluded, "Middle America does not express its likes and dislikes very well." Crime was a convenient proxy for race, but also for a complex amalgam of social and cultural concerns that troubled the mind of "Middle America." If Middle America had trouble articulating its resentments, worries and insecurities, Richard Nixon didn't. *** For the better part of 20 years, Richard Nixon's playbook was the GOP's playbook. When Ronald Reagan warned in 1980 of the "strapping young buck" using food stamps to buy steaks, he crudely invoked images of dangerous black men gaming the system at the taxpayer's expense. As Lee Atwater famously boasted in 1981, "You start in 1954 by saying 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'Nigger.' That hurts you. It backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff and you get so abstract. Now you talk about cutting taxes and these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. … So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner." Atwater, who later developed the "Willie Horton" ad, might well have added crime to the list of racial dog whistles. Yet something happened in the 1990s. For reasons that criminologists, sociologists and policy makers continue to debate, crime rates fell—and then plummeted. And for a time, it no longer behooved Republicans to sound the Willie Horton alarm. Today, the law and order rhetoric is back. The crime interestingly, is not. Crime was genuinely through the roof in 1968. Today, it is at a historic low. What's not at a low, though, is grassroots unrest. Unrest over demographic change. Unrest over evolving social and cultural mores. And, like Richard Nixon before him, Donald Trump has tapped into this anxiety. Many of his Republican supporters are frustrated by tax, trade and immigration policies favored by Wall Street but not by Main Street. He succeeds best among demographic groups who have been left behind, or who feel that they're being left behind in a country that's less white, less Christian, and less homogenous than 50 years ago. Perhaps better than any other candidate, he recognizes a genuine popular fear of Islamic terrorism.
	11	+
	12	+====Campbell is the key to preventing Right Wing Supreme Court appointments- small majority.====
	13	+**Champion 16**
	14	+(NOVEMBER 15, 2016 by EDWARD CHAMPION, Political Writer, "The Silver Lining: A Potential Bipartisan Senate Blockade to Stop Trump", Reluctant Habits, http://www.edrants.com/the-silver-lining-a-potential-bipartisan-senate-blockade-to-stop-trump/)
	15	+Many agonized observers have been so paralyzed by the shocking appointment of white supremacist Steve Bannon as Trump's key strategist, to say nothing of a potential paleoconservative Cabinet and the renewed commitment to xenophobia, deportation, and anti-choice sentiments that Trump expressed in an aloof appearance on 60 Minutes, that it has been difficult to remember that politics is a game that Trump may not quite know how to play. Sure, he can whip up the fury of a thoughtless mob to reenact Nuremburg, win votes, and inspire a spate of hate crimes after the election. But being a successful demagogue does not necessarily make one a successful politician. And while the House of Representatives and likely the Supreme Court appears to be on a fearsome rightward trajectory, there is one silver lining to this despotic cloud that Trump and his cohorts have not considered: the power and dynamics of the United States Senate. As it presently stands, the Senate is likely to be composed of 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats. However, that number could change. There remains a chance to reduce that number to a 51-49 split in favor of the Republicans. The opportunity presents itself with an experienced Louisiana fighter for the people named Foster Campbell. Campbell is running for a Senate seat in Louisiana in a runoff race with Republican State Treasurer John Kennedy (no relation to the 35th President) that is scheduled to take place on December 10, 2016. If Campbell can win, that means the Republicans will only have one majority vote. That one vote may seem like Trump can push anything he wants through a Republican-controlled Senate, but don't be so certain. Liberals (myself included) may be looking at this situation the wrong way. Because we keep forgetting that the American political landscape isn't what it was last week. The new normal isn't Republican politics as usual, but old Republican politics locked in a potent and quite volatile struggle against the alt-right extremism that Trump and his willing lieutenants will usher in, a strain that a good chunk of the population, including those who voted for Trump, will come to reject once they realize that the "outsider" is a man hobnobbing with insiders and a man who may be unable to deliver on his promises. This brand of right-wing politics is so utterly beyond anything we have seen before, even with Mitch McConnell's hijacking of the Merrick Garland nomination or anything plotted by Grover Norquist, that we have failed to consider that some Republicans may very well reject it, especially if their phone banks are jammed with constituents regularly calling them. Politics, as we all know, makes strange bedfellows. And while a moderate Senator created gridlock with Democrats in pre-Trump times, there's a greater likelihood that moderates will side with Democrats if the full monty of Trump's extremism streaks through the Senate chambers. There may be some bipartisan options to not only deadlock the Senate on key bills, but that could prevent the Senate from confirming one quarter of the 4,000 new positions that the Trump administration needs to fill before January. Senator Susan Collins may be a Republican from Maine, but her positions resemble a more conservative Democrat. (Indeed, Newsweek called her one of the last moderates in the Northeast.) She's pro-choice, willing to raise taxes on any income bracket, supports gun restrictions and same-sex marriage, and, according to someone who called her, was willing to support the DREAM Act (a key piece of legislation for immigrants) as a standalone bill. Senator Harry Reid has cut bipartisan deals with her in the past. So there may be a possibility to work with her in the future. Another dependable moderate Republican-Democratic alignment may be with Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski, who expressed dismay over the radical direction of the Republican party in 2012 and has also expressed a desire to do something about climate change. Like Sen. Collins, Sen. Murkowski has some progressive positions. She supported the DREAM Act and she did reject Trump's call to deport Muslims last year. She also had tough words for Sarah Palin and Joe Miller. Politics is a numbers game. And if Senators Murkowski and Collins are willing to work with the Democrats in an age of Trump extremism (and I think they will, provided the alt-right doesn't get to them), then there's a possibility that many Trump-inspired bills and confirmations will receive a 51 nay with 49 Democrats in the Senate. This does leave Collins and Murkowski in positions of great influence, and they will certainly use this to their advantage, possibly playing both sides against each other, but it's a two year buffer that may just hold somewhat if the Democrats can succeed in winning back the Senate during the 2018 midterm elections. Historically speaking, there hasn't been a tie-breaking vote cast by a sitting Vice President since March 13, 2008. (Joe Biden never cast a tie-breaking vote.) It's possible that Vice President Mike Pence will overturn John Adams's 28 tie-breaking vote record under a Trump Administration. This is, after all, an unprecedented moment in American political history in which anything can and will happen. But if Pence does this, this may create friction and animosity between the White House and the Republican Senators, who in turn may revolt against the Trump Administration's autocratic tactics.
	16	+
	17	+====Upcoming Supreme Court cases will decide the fate of racial bias in the judiciary system.====
	18	+**AAUW 16**
	19	+(American Association of University Women, national grassroots political organization, November 8 2016, "The Incomplete Supreme Court and Some Significant Upcoming Cases", http://www.aauw.org/2016/11/08/incomplete-supreme-court-and-upcoming-cases/)
	20	+Despite the incomplete court, the justices must decide on a variety of cases in the coming months, many of which have serious effects on women and girls. The court will be reviewing cases involving such issues as racial bias, students with disabilities, free speech and equal protection, and transgender rights. Limiting Racial Bias in the Judicial Process Unfortunately, racial bias is just as prevalent in our justice system as it is in our society. In Buck v. Davis, a death penalty case, the court is deciding whether a defendant can argue that the assistance he or she received from counsel was ineffective because of racial bias. In 1996, Duane Edward Buck shot and killed two people and wounded his sister. He was charged with capital murder. It was clear that he was guilty, but the sentencing process was muddled. Buck's own attorney introduced an expert witness who argued that Buck was more likely to commit future crimes because he is black. This racially biased opinion of likelihood of recidivism weighed heavily in this case. In order to impose the death penalty, state sentencing law required the jury to decide unanimously that the defendant would be dangerous in the future. Buck is seeking relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel because racially biased evidence was used in determining his death sentence. He must prove that the ineffective counsel resulted in a prejudiced trial outcome. While this case shows clear evidence that our judicial system is not free of racial bias, it also highlights the lack of representation of black female lawyers before the Supreme Court. Buck's lawyer, Christina Swarns, the litigation director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, is the first black woman to argue a U.S. Supreme Court case in three years. The second case centers on the right to an impartial jury. Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment. However, after the verdict was handed down, two jurors reported that another juror made racially biased comments during jury deliberations. The Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that Pena-Rodriguez had waived his right to impartial jury by failing to adequately question the jurors during jury selection. These two cases raise important questions about racial bias within the judiciary.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-20 14:06:35.191

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Aaron Timmons

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Colleyville Heritage CW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+10

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Winston Churchill Coltzer Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NovDec Senate Elections

Tournament

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