Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[19]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[20]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[19]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-20 14:06:35.191
	1	+2016-11-20 14:06:35.0

Caselist.CitesClass[20]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,17 @@
	1	+====The supreme court is seen as legitimate but with Scalia's seat still being vacant its legitimacy is on the brink – legitimacy is crucial to maintain its power====
	2	+**Gershman 16** (Gershman, Jacob. "How Supreme Court Legitimacy Is Shaped." WSJ. Wsj.com, 08 Apr. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.)
	3	+While clashing over the Supreme Court vacancy, President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans both agree to some extent that the legitimacy of the nation's highest court is at stake. To the president, it's political infighting over the next nominee that's wounding the institution. "The courts will be just an extension of our legislatures and our elections and our politics. and that erodes the institutional integrity of the judicial branch," Mr. Obama said, speaking at the University of Chicago Law School on Thursday. GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, in remarks on the Senate floor earlier this week, didn't use the word "legitimacy." But the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee talked about the public's waning confidence in the court. In his view, that negative perception flows from polarizing rulings and reflects public frustration when justices don't stick to the constitutional text and base their votes on political preferences. How people perceive, understand and judge the highest court in the nation has long fascinated and puzzled social scientists. Scholars looking at the subject have focused on the idea of legitimacy as the high court's most precious resource. It's the steel frame protecting the institution when a seismic ruling is handed down. Evaluations of legitimacy tend to be more stable over time than job approval numbers, but when it erodes, it can be much more damaging. According to James L. Gibson, a political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis, there was "little if any diminution of the court's legitimacy in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore," the 2000 case that resulted in the George W. Bush presidency. That's because, he says, the high court had a deep reservoir of goodwill to drawn on. In a recent paper he co-wrote analyzing survey data, he explores further how the high court accumulates and loses legitimacy, drawing two main conclusions. One is that the greatest threat to the court's legitimacy "comes from perceived politicization: the belief that the Court is just an ordinary political institution, largely indistinguishable from the other political branches." The other is that for much of the public, ideological disappointment with rulings doesn't by itself fuel a perception that the court is politicized. People can disagree with controversial decisions, but goodwill endures if people feel that justices ruled with principled sincerity. These days Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to disapprove of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job. And the court's "job approval," as measured by Gallup, is lower than usual as a whole. But, according to Mr. Gibson, there's no evidence that Republicans judge the court as any less legitimate. Complicating the analysis, he conceded in an interview with Law Blog, is a lack of reliable recent data measuring institutional support. But Mr. Gibson says if he has any advice for the justices, it's to "stay above the fray."
	4	+
	5	+====The supreme court ruled in Pearson v. Callahan that qualified immunity for police officers is justified. ====
	6	+
	7	+====Legitimacy is based on precedent, overturning that decisions based on political justifications rather than the constitution destroys legitimacy ====
	8	+**Fowler 08 **(James H. Fowler, Ph.D in Government from Harvard and M.A. in IR from Yale; professor of Political Science at UCSD; senior fellow on global justice at UCSD, The authority of Supreme Court precedent, 2008, Social Networks, Vol. 30(1), p. 16-30)
	9	+Legal historians suggest that justices in the 19th Century responded to the crisis of legitimacy by strengthening the norm of stare decisis, a legal norm inherited from English common law that encourages judges to follow precedent by letting the past decision stand ( Friedman, 1985, pp. 127–133). In order to foster compliance and enhance the institutional reputation of the Court, stare decisis was implemented to place decision-making in the domain of neutral legal principles and the "accumulated experience of many judges responding to the arguments and evidence of many lawyers" ( Landes and Posner, 1976, p. 250) rather than at the whim of the personal preferences of individuals. To this day, the justices of the Supreme Court are aware of the inherent weakness of the federal judiciary and place high value on maintaining their institutional and decisional legitimacy through the use of precedent (Ginsburg, 2004, Powell, 1990 and Stevens, 1983). Recognizing that legitimacy is essential to achieve their policy objectives, the members of the Court justify their substantive rulings through court opinions, which allow the justices to demonstrate how their decisions are consistent with existing legal rules and principles established in prior cases (see Hansford and Spriggs, 2006, pp. 24–30). Because it is the application of existing precedents that creates the perception of judicial decision-making to be procedurally neutral and fair ( Tyler and Mitchell, 1994), these opinions are often considered to be the source of the Court's power ( Epstein and Knight, 1998 and Segal and Spaeth, 2002).
	10	+
	11	+====Legitimacy and power of the supreme court is key to Democracy====
	12	+**Peretti 1999** (Terri J., In Defense of a Political Court, Princeton University Press)
	13	+Should the Court lose its legitimacy and, consequently, its power, we in turn lose the benefits that only the Court can provide. Vitally important constitutional rights and liberties, as well as minority groups, would be unprotected and would likely suffer at the hands of an indifferent or hostile majority. An additional loss of paramount importance is the ideal and the reality of the rule of law. All government action would be reduced to arbitrary will and force, rather than being justified according to reason and, thus, rendered legitimate. The consequences of the Court losing its legitimacy and the ability to play its specialized role, if we are to believe Philip Kurland, are horrible indeed.
	14	+
	15	+====Democracy's solves nuclear war, terrorism, and proliferation ====
	16	+Halperin 11 (Morton H., Senior Advisor – Open Society Institute and Senior Vice President of the Center for American Progress, "Unconventional Wisdom – Democracy is Still Worth Fighting For", Foreign Policy, January / February, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/unconventional_wisdom?page=0,11)
	17	+As the United States struggles to wind down two wars and recover from a humbling financial crisis, realism is enjoying a renaissance. Afghanistan and Iraq bear scant resemblance to the democracies we were promised. The Treasury is broke. And America has a president, Barack Obama, who once compared his foreign-policy philosophy to the realism of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: "There's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain," Obama said during his 2008 campaign. "And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things." But one can take such words of wisdom to the extreme-as realists like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and writer Robert Kaplan sometimes do, arguing that the United States can't afford the risks inherent in supporting democracy and human rights around the world. Others, such as cultural historian Jacques Barzun, go even further, saying that America can't export democracy at all, "because it is not an ideology but a wayward historical development." Taken too far, such realist absolutism can be just as dangerous, and wrong, as neoconservative hubris. For there is one thing the neocons get right: As I argue in The Democracy Advantage, democratic governments are more likely than autocratic regimes to engage in conduct that advances U.S. interests and avoids situations that pose a threat to peace and security. Democratic states are more likely to develop and to avoid famines and economic collapse. They are also less likely to become failed states or suffer a civil war. Democratic states are also more likely to cooperate in dealing with security issues, such as terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As the bloody aftermath of the Iraq invasion painfully shows, democracy cannot be imposed from the outside by force or coercion. It must come from the people of a nation working to get on the path of democracy and then adopting the policies necessary to remain on that path. But we should be careful about overlearning the lessons of Iraq. In fact, the outside world can make an enormous difference in whether such efforts succeed. There are numerous examples-starting with Spain and Portugal and spreading to Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia-in which the struggle to establish democracy and advance human rights received critical support from multilateral bodies, including the United Nations, as well as from regional organizations, democratic governments, and private groups. It is very much in America's interest to provide such assistance now to new democracies, such as Indonesia, Liberia, and Nepal, and to stand with those advocating democracy in countries such as Belarus, Burma, and China. It will still be true that the United States will sometimes need to work with a nondemocratic regime to secure an immediate objective, such as use of a military base to support the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, or in the case of Russia, to sign an arms-control treaty. None of that, however, should come at the expense of speaking out in support of those struggling for their rights. Nor should we doubt that America would be more secure if they succeed.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-20 14:06:35.649

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 Legitimacy DA

Tournament

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