To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
Anitblackness K
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit AS | Judge: Chris Vincent
The 1ac's celebration of democratic ideals like inclusion is fundamentally anti-black and cant accommodate for the lived experiences of black and red bodies. They attempt to criticize the current state without realizing that the root cause is democracy itself.
Wilderson 2010 Frank, Associate Professor at UC Irvine's Department of Drama and African American Studies, Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, 3-12, 23-4 What are we to make of a world that responds to the most lucid enunciation AND more concrete analyses of films in parts 2, 3, and 4.
Turn: The aff attempts to foreground various interlocking oppressions in a chain of equivalence denies the structuring force of anti-blackness – that actually dooms the coalitional democratic politics that the 1AC advocates.
Sexton '10 ~Jared, associate professor of African American studies and film and media studies at the University of California, Irvine, "People-of-Color-Blindness", Social Text 2010 Volume 28, Number 2 103: 31-56~ If the oppression of nonblack people of color in, and perhaps beyond, the AND it no doubt would entail nothing less momentous than yet another revolution. 78
The slave, positioned as a recipient of direct force and terror, demands an end to production and the entire coherence of civil society.
Wilderson 2003 Frank, Associate Professor at UC Irvine's Department of Drama and African American Studies, "Gramsci's Black Marx: Whither the Slave in Civil Society?" Social Identities 9.2 Any serious consideration of the question of antagonistic identity formation — a formation, the AND never forgotten spectre waiting in the wings — the understudy of Gramsci's hegemony.
Vote negative to engage in an unflinching structural analysis of the ontological position of Blackness—the very possibility of ethics and freedom resides in a rejection of the affirmative's ratification of democracy, the state and civil society. The ROB that best deconstructs anti-blackness
Kokontis 2011 (Kate, PhD in Performance Studies from UC-Berkeley, "Performative Returns and the Rememory of History: genealogy and performativity in the American racial state," Dissertation available on Proquest) On one hand, she addresses the literal politics that the theological narratives espouse. AND for reinvention and reconstruction that emerge when faced with profound absence and loss.
9/10/16
Disclosure Theory
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Des Moines Valley CT | Judge: Jane Brennan A is the Interpretation: All debaters with awareness and access to the NDCA 16-17 LD Wiki, located at “hsld.debatecoaches.org”, must disclose all positions on said wiki 30 minutes before each round. B. they didn’t disclose C. Standards Small School Inclusivity – Disclosure levels the playing field for information and accessibility, and preparedness – large schools have lots of coaching at tournaments small schools needs disclosure so they can prepare before the tournament Research - Disclosure creates a high incentive to do deeper and more focused research – exposes people to the literature You guys have been to multiple tournaments on this topic – not disclosing allows you to read sketch shit to avoid real discussion which is a bad norm bc you circumvent debate D. Fairness is a voter because it always skews the evaluation of the ballot. Education is a voter because it’s the end goal of the activity. Drop the debater
Counterplan: The fifty United States and District of Columbia should pass the New Voices act.
State legislation solves - Several major state legislative bodies have already passed the New Voices Act including California, Washington, Colorado, and Massachusetts. The Legislation overrules the hazelwood decision and solves all the aff.
Listopad, 17. Steven Listopad, North Dakota State University PhD candidate, has been an assistant professor of Journalism and Mass Communication and Student Media Director at two North Dakota universities. ~http://newvoicesus.com/the-legislation/~~ Black Lavender New Voices Act state legislation is divided into three parts to reflect three different sets AND in committee. North Dakota plans to readdress this in the next session.
2/19/17
JanFeb ACA PTX DA
Tournament: Colleyveille | Round: 4 | Opponent: Marcus SS | Judge: Lawrence, Zhou
Trump is currently pushing for free speech on college campus – a push toward free speech solidifies Trump's republican backers
Schallhorn 1-13 (Schallhorn, Kaitlyn. "Team Trump Meets with National College Organization to Talk Free Speech." TheBlaze. TheBlaze, 13 Jan. 2017. Web. 01 Feb. 2017.) Senior members of President-elect Donald Trump's transition team met with the head of AND because of a political affiliation or barring controversial speakers or events from campus.
Trump is coming into the presidency with the lowest approval ratings which has hurt his political capital – democratic pressure, republican resistance because of his nominees, and Trump spending his PC on those nominees means he can't repeal Affordable Care Act, but a strong win will rally the republican support.
Shepard and Farrell 12-24 (Shepard, Steven, A graduate of The George Washington University, and John A. Farrell. "Trump's Unpopularity Threatens to Hobble His Presidency." POLITICO. Politico, 24 Dec. 2016. Web. 03 Feb. 2017. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-favorability-232950.) President-elect Donald Trump will descend on Washington next month, buoyed by his AND tilt the playing field in its favor for the remainder of the decade.
Winners-win —- Trump's ability to pass the first policy that requires congressional approval gives Trump a major win and solidifies his shaky capital.
Hirsh, 13 —- Chief correspondent (2/7/2013, Michael, "There's No Such Thing as Political Capital; The idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong," http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207)) Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority AND . Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didn't fully understand the concept either.
ACA is crucial for millions of minorities and low income families who will be rejected medical care if ACA is repealed.
Houry and Heron 12 (Houry, Debra, and Sheryl Heron. "Why Health Reform Is Key for Minorities." CNNn. Cable News Network, 3 Sept. 2012. Web. 03 Feb. 2017. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/02/opinion/houry-heron-health-care/.) When the Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010, is fully implemented AND , particularly in underserved populations. A healthy nation is a productive nation.
The 1ac's celebration of participatory democracy is grossly inadequate to theorize the singularity of antiblackness. Civil society is founded upon the murder of Black and Red bodies. The affirmative's leftist rhetoric is nothing more than a guise for the same liberal democratic politics that allows anti-blackness to flourish.
Wilderson 2010 Frank, Associate Professor at UC Irvine's Department of Drama and African American Studies, Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, 3-12, 23-4 What are we to make of a world that responds to the most lucid enunciation AND more concrete analyses of films in parts 2, 3, and 4.
Black protest and free speech doesn't negate social debate but represents a voiceless scream while endlessly mute because black demands can not exist within civil society. The 1AC gives the illusion of a voice for black demands without providing any way to resolve black death. Black people can vote and stand trial but they are still sent to prison and shot in the streets.
Sexton '11 (Jared, "The Social Life of Social Death: On Afro-Pessimism and Black Optimism" http://www.yorku.ca/intent/issue5/articles/pdfs/jaredsextonarticle.pdf) ~M Leap~ ~24~ To speak of black social life and black social death, AND arguments (should) begin, but they cannot (yet) proceed.
The conversation for free speech on college campuses is structured around white fragility and white supremacy. Free speech is just a flinch away from the horrors of anti-blackness that seeks to give a voice to white supremacy.
Carpenter 16 "Free speech, Black lives and white fragility" Bennett Carpenter, Grad student studying free speech, Duke Chronicle, January 19th 2016, http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/01/free-speech-black-lives-and-white-fragility) As I write my first column, I am thinking a lot about speech. AND face of both material and psychological retaliation. Everything else is just white noise
The position of the slave is trapped between the subjective and objective vertigo that produces the violence of political economy. The grammer of suffering that the Slave experiences can not be voiced or reasoned.
Wilderson 11 Prof. of African American studies and drama at UC Irvine ~Frank B., III, "The Vengeance of Vertigo: Aphasia and Abjection in the Political Trials of Black Insurgents," InTensions Journal Iss. 5 Fall/Winter 2011 http://www.yorku.ca/intent/issue5/articles/frankbwildersoniii.php ~2~ With only small arms and crude explosives at their disposal, with AND with the myriad maps and frameworks which explain the dispossession of Human subalterns.
Anti-blackness is a cognitive matrix that produces a geography of death—-their impact calculus systematically devalues black life.
Dillon 12 Stephen, Ph.D. candidate in American Studies at the University of Minnesota. Dark Matter, 8-28, http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/2012/08/28/book-review-state-of-white-supremacy-darkmatter-journal/ The terrifying brilliance of contemporary white supremacy is that its breathtaking uneven distribution of life AND condition of possibility for our present subjectivities and modern politics" (269).
The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best deconstructs anti-blackness
Our Alternative is to reject the affirmative in order to focus on an unflinching paradigmatic analysis that calls for the END OF AMERICA.
Wilderson 10 (Frank "Unspeakable Ethics", Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, ix-x, ~GLOB~) Strange as it may seem, this book project began in South Africa. During AND , Andile Mngxitama, Prishani Naidoo, John Shai, and S'bu Zulu.
2/18/17
JanFeb Cap K
Tournament: Colleyveille | Round: 4 | Opponent: Marcus SS | Judge: Lawrence, Zhou
The university has become the cornerstone of production, where research and learning has become more and more focused on using students as capital for knowledge economies and mass capitalist globalization.
Peters and Besley 06 (Michael A. Peters and A.C. Besley, Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism, 2006, pp 24-25, 7/5/2016) It is not hard to make the leap from informatization and the postmodernization of production AND tertiary education and the emergence of a global market for advanced human capital.
Free speech is an illusion–The promotion of free speech perpetuates the idea that speech is a commodity, which strengthens neoliberalism's hold on the academy.
Brown 15 Brown, Wendy. Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution. MIT Press, 2015.
At times, kennedy raises the pitch in Citizens United to depict limits on AND warring forces parallel to those of government and capital in a neoliberal economy.
Capitalism is driving racism, militarization, and environmental collapse that will cause extinction it's try or die – all other impacts take a back seat so we control the direction of their impacts.
Dean 15 (Jodi, professor of political science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, "Red, Black, and Green," Rethinking Marxism, 27:3, July 16, Taylor and Francis) The absence of a powerful Left enables the political Right (in part by shifting AND relate to ourselves as comrades, as solidary members of a fighting collective.
Voting negative refuses the affirmative in favor of Historical Materialist Pedagogy. International inequality is sutured by the unequal circulation of capital. Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary moment. Only starting from the structural antagonisms produced by wage labor can lead to transformative politics.
Ebert '9 ~Teresa, Associate Professor of English, State University of New York at Albany, THE TASK OF CULTURAL CRITIQUE, pp. 92-95~ Unlike these rewritings, which reaffirm in a somewhat new language the system of wage AND Instead, the pedagogy of critique is a worldly teaching of the worldly.
Both the left and right are mobilizing pressure on senate democrats, the side that can organize strong grassroots will decide the nomination.
SEUNG MIN KIM and BURGESS EVERETT 02/02/17 ~Seung Min Kim is an assistant editor who covers Congress for POLITICO. Previously, she edited the Arena and served as a Web producer. Before POLITICO, she worked at USA Today and the Star-Ledger of Newark. She also completed internships at The Des Moines Register, the St. Petersburg Times and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Kim graduated with degrees in journalism and political science from the University of Iowa, and also has a master's degree in journalism from American University. She is the current president of the Washington, D.C.-chapter of the Asian American Journalists Association. John Burgess Everett is a congressional reporter for POLITICO. He previously was a transportation reporter for POLITICO Pro, Web producer, helping run POLITICO's Twitter and Facebook accounts, and a contributor to the On Media blog. Burge 02/02/17, "These Democrats will decide Gorsuch's fate", http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-supreme-court-democrats-senate-234521~~ Senate Democrats are vowing to go to war over Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, AND Democrats, occasionally votes against the party on near party-line votes.
Trump is currently pushing for free speech on college campus – a push toward free speech solidifies Trump's republican backers
Schallhorn 17. (Schallhorn, Kaitlyn. "Team Trump Meets with National College Organization to Talk Free Speech." TheBlaze. TheBlaze, 13 Jan. 2017. Web. 01 Feb. 2017.) Senior members of President-elect Donald Trump's transition team met with the head of AND because of a political affiliation or barring controversial speakers or events from campus.
Trump's popularity will be key to Gorsuch confirmation. Gorsuch will be critical in fortifying Trump's energy and environmental policies regarding climate change.
Warming is real, anthropogenic, and causes EXTINCTION – its try or die
Costello 11 (Anthony, Institute for Global Health, University College London, Mark Maslin, Department of Geography, University College London, Hugh Montgomery, Institute for Human Health and Performance, University College London, Anne M. Johnson, Institute for Global Health, University College London, Paul Ekins, Energy Institute, University College London, "Global health and climate change: moving from denial and catastrophic fatalism to positive action" May 2011 vol. 369 no. 1942 1866-1882 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society)
Advocacy about the health consequences will ensure that climate change is a high AND as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible, therefore making many environments uninhabitable.
2/19/17
JanFeb Hate Speech
Tournament: Colleyveille | Round: 4 | Opponent: Marcus SS | Judge: Lawrence, Zhou
Current protections against hate speech are working – on campus harassment is decreasing nationally now.
Sutton 16 Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casr.30185/full A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease AND lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder.
Removing restrictions on free speech allows hate speech – hate speech IS free speech
Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups.
Greenblatt 15 Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking AND are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling.
Interp: On the JanFeb 2017 topic the affirmative must defend that public colleges and universities ought not restrict ANY constitutionally protected speech.
Any is an indefinite pronoun that refers to things generally
Language NO DATE (Online English grammar textbook, Unit 42: - Indefinite Pronouns," http://www.1-language.com/englishcoursenew/unit42_grammar.htm/// Indefinite pronouns replace specific things with general, non-specific concepts. For example AND anything from the supermarket. - Do you need anything from the supermarket?
Violation: The plan ends restrictions surrounding specific forms of speech
Standards:
Limits – allowing plan affs around specified kinds of speech justifies a limitless number of affs that ban types of speech i.e. hate speech, specific words, and speech in specified time and places, the list goes on and on. Two impacts—
Fairness—means that the neg has a limitless number of affs to prepare case negs to which results in shallow engagement and the same generics. Fairness is a voter, debate is a competitive activity and both sides need equal access to the ballot.
Education—shallow engagement means we never actually learn about the aff topic lit in depth—education is a voter it's the reason why schools fund debate.
Topical version of the aff – remove restrictions surrounding all forms of constitutionally protected speech – solves 100 of your offense because it ensures we can still discuss the aff but allows for the neg to access links to our generics.
Drop the debater on T.
1~ sets a precedent in favor of a positive model of debate—wins and losses determine the direction of activity 2~ Deterrence—Dropping the debater will be best because it shows that they
2/19/17
NovDec Anti-Blackness K
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: DuPoint Manuel JX | Judge: Jordan Friedman
The 1ac's celebration of participatory democracy like the constitution and policy debate is grossly inadequate to theorize the singularity of antiblackness. Civil society is founded upon the murder of Black and Red bodies. The affirmative's leftist rhetoric is nothing more than a guise for the same liberal democratic politics that allows anti-blackness to flourish.
Wilderson 2010 Frank, Associate Professor at UC Irvine's Department of Drama and African American Studies, Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, 3-12, 23-4 What are we to make of a world that responds to the most lucid enunciation AND more concrete analyses of films in parts 2, 3, and 4.
Gender as performative mystifies the structural position of Blackness.
Wilderson 2010 Frank, Associate Professor at UC Irvine's Department of Drama and African American Studies, Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, 310-6 Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks's Desiring Whiteness: A Lacanian Analysis of Race labors rigorously to AND of cinema lets ordinary White film say what extraordinary White folks will not.
The aff attempts to foreground various interlocking oppressions in a chain of equivalence denies the structuring force of anti-blackness – that actually dooms the coalitional democratic politics that the 1AC advocates Sexton '10 ~Jared, associate professor of African American studies and film and media studies at the University of California, Irvine, "People-of-Color-Blindness", Social Text 2010 Volume 28, Number 2 103: 31-56~ If the oppression of nonblack people of color in, and perhaps beyond, the AND it no doubt would entail nothing less momentous than yet another revolution. 78
Limiting Qualified Immunity is not an act of defiance, rather it is the opposite, it only serves to legitimize the United States constitution, rule of law, and criminal justice system.
Chen 15 (Qualified Immunity Liming Access to Justice and Impeding Development of the Law", Vol. 41 No. 1, Alan K. Chen, the William M. Beaney Memorial Research Chair and professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, where he teaches courses in constitutional law, federal courts, and public interest law, American Bar Association, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/2015—vol—41-/vol—41—no—1—-lurking-in-the-shadows—the-supreme-court-s-qui/qualified-immunity-limiting-access-to-justice-and-impeding-devel.html) What this means is that in cases involving cutting-edge issues of constitutional law AND (2010) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
The squo uses qualified immunity for black people because violence done to black people is not "clearly established" nor understood. The aff attempts to define and position black suffering as contingent and understood.
The position of the slave is trapped between the subjective and objective vertigo that produces the violence of political economy. The Affirmative understands violence as a response to the performative resistance of the intra-Human conflicts of labour, gender, sex, and police brutality. This renders the logic of the affirmative unaccountable to ontological violence of black suffering
Wilderson 11 Prof. of African American studies and drama at UC Irvine ~Frank B., III, "The Vengeance of Vertigo: Aphasia and Abjection in the Political Trials of Black Insurgents," InTensions Journal Iss. 5 Fall/Winter 2011 http://www.yorku.ca/intent/issue5/articles/frankbwildersoniii.php ~2~ With only small arms and crude explosives at their disposal, with AND with the myriad maps and frameworks which explain the dispossession of Human subalterns.
The aff merely papers over the structural antagonism between the black and the human – courts are unable to understand or incorporate black demands – the affirmative pushes the Slave to the political and attempts to make their violence legible for whites which is a paradigmatic impossibility and obscures anti-blackness
Wilderson 11 (Frank, professor of Drama and African American studies at the University of California, Irvine, "The Vengeance of Vertigo: Aphasia and Abjection in the Political Trials of Black Insurgents", InTensions, Issue 5 (Fall/Winter 2011)) ~12~ Balagoon's poem is an example of the "necessary thing" AND channeled through conceptual frameworks and cognitive maps which crowd them out as subjects.
Anti-blackness is a cognitive matrix that produces a geography of death—-their impact calculus systematically devalues black life.
Dillon 12 Stephen, Ph.D. candidate in American Studies at the University of Minnesota. Dark Matter, 8-28, http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/2012/08/28/book-review-state-of-white-supremacy-darkmatter-journal/ The terrifying brilliance of contemporary white supremacy is that its breathtaking uneven distribution of life AND condition of possibility for our present subjectivities and modern politics" (269).
The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best deconstructs anti-blackness
Our Alternative is to reject the affirmative in order to focus on an unflinching paradigmatic analysis that calls for the END OF AMERICA.
Wilderson 10 (Frank "Unspeakable Ethics", Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, ix-x, ~GLOB~) Strange as it may seem, this book project began in South Africa. During AND , Andile Mngxitama, Prishani Naidoo, John Shai, and S'bu Zulu.
The United States Congress ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers by "clearly established right" clause to "clearly unconstitutional."
Congress has to power to limit qualified immunity under Article 3 of the consitituion.
Huq 16 ("Revive Congressional Authority over Courts", Aziz Huq, Law and politics writer, Winter 2016, Democracy Journal, http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/39/revive-congressional-authority-over-courts/) Federal courts shape our lives in two main ways. First, both Supreme Court justices and judges in lower courts decide policy issues of major importance that define the scope of our basic constitutional rights. We see this most notably in the Supreme Court's high-profile decisions on matters like same-sex marriage. But a second, less noticed judicial function also has a profound impact on our civic life. Federal judges, largely in the lower courts, rule on specific allegations that the constitutional rights of particular citizens were violated. In doing so, those judges implement the rights that they themselves have defined. The federal courts' implementation function is very poorly understood by most people. But rights matter only if they are implemented by judicial remedies. And federal judges have been increasingly rationing remedies over the last four decades. One example of many occurs in cases of excessive police force, in which victims today must prove that perpetrators had no conceivable explanation for their actions. For low-income people who face discriminatory police and hostile state courts without high-priced counsel, such a barrier is practically insurmountable. Can anything be done to change this? Most obviously, we can change the composition of the federal bench, from the high court on down. But there's another avenue that people should know about: Congress has the constitutional authority to require federal courts to mandate effective remedies for those whose rights were violated. The current occupants of Capitol Hill will obviously want no part of this project. But progressives should keep it in mind as a potential weapon in the battle over the courts in the years to come. Under Article III of our Constitution, Congress possesses wide authority to shape when and how courts wield the power to define and enforce constitutional rights. But Congress has let this power fall into disuse. Since the late nineteenth century, it has delegated more and more power to the federal courts to set the judicial agenda. Over the twentieth century, the courts' prestige grew, making it harder for Congress to wrestle away this control. Politicians also realized they could rely on the courts to pursue unpopular policy goals, from desegregation to deregulation, without taking flak themselves. And when it comes to constitutional remedies, it turns out that federal judges have a strong institutional interest in shaping their own caseload, whereas legislators have proved at best indifferent to the quality of federal court remediation. Using their largely unfettered independence, federal judges have had free rein for the past century in deciding whether, how, and for whom federal courts should enforce the Constitution. In the 1950s and '60s, lower federal court judges made exceptional efforts to disassemble Jim Crow. But since then, federal courts have crafted doctrine that makes it harder and harder for ordinary people to vindicate basic constitutional rights, by throwing up a host of procedural barriers and technical limitations that dramatically ration the relief available after a constitutional violation. Here's an example. In the late 1950s and '60s, state prisoners whose arrests or convictions flowed from constitutional violations had free access to federal courts to obtain release. Today, in contrast, those prisoners must first meet tight deadlines, then they must satisfy a complex rule requiring their challenges to be presented first in state court, and finally they have to show that a state court ignored a "clearly established" Supreme Court precedent when they were convicted. Since most state court criminal judgments do not contain any actual reasoning, but simply state a conclusion, this last rule is especially Kafkaesque. In part, these changes reflect the Court's post-1980 conservative swerve. But they also reflect an institutional concern, shared by liberal and conservative jurists alike, for managing the case flow of an overworked federal bench. The simple fact is that constitutional violations today are endemic, especially in policing and state criminal justice. Both liberal and conservative judges know that if they took the Constitution's rights portion seriously, they would be swamped. By throwing up procedural bars to relief, judges dissuade people from filing in the first instance, but also make it easier to dismiss cases without any discovery or other costly judicial process. But Congress could change all this if it wanted to. What specifically could Congress do? To start with, it should narrow or abolish the doctrine of "qualified immunity," which bars liability for constitutional violations except for "the plainly incompetent ~official~ or those who knowingly violate the law." It should do the same with similar doctrines, such as the rule that evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment will not be excluded if the police were not at fault. It should also make it easier for people to obtain institution-wide relief on an ongoing basis, such as by consent decrees over state police, jails, and prisons. Federal courts once provided effective relief against segregated schools and brutalizing police forces, but they have pulled back. They can and should again be in the business of ruling on class actions that challenge the institutionalized infliction of constitutional harms in state schools, courts, and prisons.
The Court takes years to act, whereas Congress can implement the plan now – all their advantages become linear disads vs the counterplan.
Ornstein et al 11( – Continuity of Government Commission made up of Norman J. Ornstein political scientist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Thomas E. Mann Averell Harriman Chair and a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, John C. Fortier research fellow at AEI, and Jennifer K. Marsico AEI, 2011, "Preserving Our Institutions: The Third Report of the Continuity of Government Commission-The Supreme Court." American Enterprise Institute, https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Supreme-Court-Continuity.pdf) First, in ordinary times the Court does not typically move on a quick timetable. And even more relevant to the issues we are discussing, it is not obvious that the Court would need to act immediately in the midst of a national security crisis. For the presidency, the country needs an immediate answer to the question of who is acting as president after an attack. If the president is dead or grievously wounded, there must be a successor who can initiate immediate emergency actions in dealing with the aftermath of a catastrophe or strike back against foreign or domestic foes. For the legislative branch, the Continuity of Government Commission has argued the need for a reconstituted, fully functioning, legitimate Congress days after an attack. In the several days, weeks, and months after 9/11, Congress authorized military action in Afghanistan; appropriated funds for military, homeland security, and rebuilding; created new institutions and legal powers for transportation security; and passed the Patriot Act. Congress does not need to act minutes after an attack, but a reconstituted Congress is essential in the weeks and months after an attack. By contrast, an argument can be made that the Supreme Court is not as necessary for immediate action, even after an attack. The process of a typical court case reaching the Supreme Court is a long one. Ordinarily, when the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, it is several months before oral arguments are made before the Court and several more months before the Court issues a decision. And this lengthy process does not include the course of cases in lower courts, which can add years to the time from when a case is first filed until the Supreme Court renders a judgment. Furthermore, many cases never reach the Supreme Court but are decided with finality by other federal courts. And even though there have often been some who push for Court action in the midst of an emergency, the Court has frequently decided these sorts of cases years later after the emergency has passed or receded. For example, a number of recent and older cases dealing with military commissions were decided years after initial detainment.
House 14 ~William. Political Reporter for the National Journal. "Court Rulings Mean Judges Will Get an Extra $1B in Pay and Benefits" The National Journal 9/24/14 http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/court-rulings-mean-judges-will-get-an-extra-1b-in-pay-and-benefits-20140924~~ More than 2,000 federal judges from Chief Justice John Roberts down will share in about $1 billion more in salary and benefits over the next 10 years because of court rulings determining that Congress improperly withheld automatic increases dating from the 1990s, according to the Congressional Budget Office. "As a result of those decisions and corresponding administrative actions, many judges will now receive automatic salary increases, and subsequent annuity adjustments, as well as restitution for prior automatic salary increases they should have received," wrote CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf. His cost calculations were delivered in a letter on Wednesday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. The letter addresses the financial impacts of successful court challenges to the congressional withholding of federal judge pay increases in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, and 2010. Those legal challenges were most notably carried out in Beer v. United States and Barker v. United States. Federal court judges have already started to benefit. Their salaries rose by 14 percent on Jan. 1, as the years of missing cost-of-living adjustments were added to their paychecks. The chief justice now is paid $255,500, and associate Supreme Court justices have a $244,400 salary. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges are getting $211,200 a year, and the annual salary of a U.S. District Court judge is $199,100. As a cumulative result of the court decisions, writes Elmendorf, direct federal spending will be higher by about $1.027 billion from 2015 through 2024. Only about $190 million of that will be discretionary costs, subject to annual appropriations.
Congress blocks salary increases in response to controversial decisions – empirics prove
Miller 6 (Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Government and International Relations at Clark University, Summer 2006, Mark C., Case Western Reserve University, "SYMPOSIUM: JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: SEARCHING FOR THE RIGHT BALANCE: When Congress Attacks the Federal Courts," 56 Case W. Res. 1015) Language modified - men and women to persons I. Congress's Compensation Power There have been many instances in which Congress has used various mechanisms to attack the federal courts for decisions with which a determined legislative majority has disagreed. n30 While to my knowledge Congress has not yet deliberately defied the protections inherent in the Compensation Clause, the legislative branch has used other means to attack the courts and to attempt to influence court decisions. Even though the Compensation Clause prevents Congress from reducing any judicial salaries that have already vested, n31 the clause neither requires Congress to provide any annual cost of living ~*1021~ adjustments for federal judges nor prevents Congress from canceling future announced judicial salary increases. n32 Thus, judicial salaries have always been a point of contention, and Congress has sometimes used judicial salaries to send a clear message to the courts. For example, in 1964, Congress increased the salaries for lower federal judges by $ 7,500 per year but increased the salaries for Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court by only $ 4,500 per year. As Schmidhauser and Berg explain, "The $ 3,000 differential clearly reflected a direct Congressional reprimand to the Supreme Court. This crude rebuff clearly stemmed from congressional dissatisfaction with several controversial decisions rendered by the Court." n33 Clearly, judicial salary issues have added to the tensions between the courts and Congress. Federal judges often feel that Congress does not provide adequate compensation for them. As Professor Paul M. Bator has remarked, "federal judges, as a group, complain more about their pay than any other group I have ever encountered." n34 There is probably a great deal of truth to the fact that federal judges feel that they are underpaid. In 2003, Judges Coffin and Katzmann noted that, "Since 1969, federal judicial salaries have lost twenty-four percent of their purchasing power." n35 Various congressional actions regarding annual cost of living adjustments for federal judges have not made federal judges feel better about their financial situations. For example, in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999, Congress blocked previously announced "automatic" cost of living increases for various governmental officials, including federal judges, that had been provided for in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. n36 Congress was really attempting to prevent the automatic pay raises for its own members from going into effect, but the legislation blocked federal judicial pay increases as well as the pay raises for legislators. When federal judges sued to ~*1022~ recover their blocked "automatic" pay increases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the proposed "automatic" pay raises had not vested, and thus, there was no violation of the Compensation Clause in the legislative actions. n37 Although the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari in the case, Justice Breyer wrote a strongly worded dissent to the denial of certiorari, which Justices Scalia and Kennedy joined. n38 This concern with judicial salaries and other budgetary resources is not new, of course. Although he was speaking more broadly of his frustration with congressional budgeting practices, Chief Justice Warren stated in 1969 that, "It is next to impossible for the courts to get something from Congress." n39 In his annual year-end reports on the State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice Rehnquist often complained about Congress's approach to judicial salary issues. In his 2000 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Rehnquist focused most of the report on what he termed, "the most pressing issue facing the Judiciary: the need to increase judicial salaries." n40 The Chief Justice went on to say, In order to continue to provide the nation a capable and effective judicial system we must be able to attract and retain experienced persons of quality and diversity to perform a demanding position in the public service. The fact is that those lawyers who are qualified to serve as federal judges have opportunities to earn far more in private law practice or business than as judges. In order to continue to attract highly qualified and diverse federal judges — judges whom we ask and expect to remain for life — we must provide them adequate compensation. n41 In a quite lengthy discussion of the subject, the Chief Justice also noted that judicial salary issues had been discussed in thirteen of the last nineteen end-of-year reports on the state of the judiciary. n42 In his 2002 Annual Report, the Chief Justice reiterated the same sentiment: "At the risk of beating a dead horse, I will reiterate what I have said many times over the years about the need to compensate judges fairly." n43 Judicial salary issues remain important to the Supreme Court and to all federal judges. In his first annual report, Chief Justice Roberts also raised the judicial salary issue: A more direct threat to judicial independence is the failure to raise judges' pay. If judges' salaries are too low, judges effectively serve for a term dictated by their financial position rather than for life. Figures gathered by the Administrative Office show that judges are leaving the bench in greater numbers now than ever before. n44
The plan is unpopular in congress – Law enforcement lobbies are powerful
Rucke 14 (Katie, political writer, Mint Press "The Law Enforcement Lobby's Heavy Hand In American Policy", http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-law-enforcement-lobbys-heavy-hand-in-american-policy/191557/ ) "Capitalism is alive and well in politics," Goldstein said while talking to MintPress about the "incredibly powerful lobby" law enforcement has created over the years. The problem with lobbying, she says, is that it's all about furthering self-interests. Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the CATO Institute, agreed with Goldstein, noting that the spokesmen and spokeswomen for police departments often distance themselves from their influence on the law when legal issues or controversies arise, "as if they are disinterested or indifferent to" what law the legislature is writing. While some of the issues taken up by the lobby are related to public safety, collective-bargaining packages for officers and other special legal protections as outlined under the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, one of the largest political issues law enforcement attempts to influence is related to drug reform — specifically, marijuana legalization. Exactly how much money police lobbies spend on legislative efforts isn't the easiest figure to decipher, since there are more than 18,000 different police departments in the United States. Of the total, some lobby, while others simply focus on keeping the people in their communities safe. To make things even more complicated, there is a difference in the types of records that are required for lobbyists that are public unions compared to organizations, and the rules vary by state, as well. But according to Dan Auble, senior researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics, law enforcement spent roughly $2.5 million lobbying lawmakers in Washington last year. Auble says this amount seems relatively "paltry" when compared to what other groups spend on influencing the government, but the actual influence of law enforcement is likely much higher. He says this is because reported financial figures don't include the other ways law enforcement influences policies such as when lawmakers reach out for an "expert opinion." Law enforcement lobbies may not be as influential in Washington as the financial and pharmaceutical companies, but Auble says that especially when it comes to issues of particular concern to law enforcement, including drug policy, human trafficking, immigration and their own pension and retirement issues, "they are surely a well-respected voice in the halls of Congress." ns may elude policy makers who cannot agree on much. And yet legislators may find their usual politics scrambled by an issue that crosses party lines. "It's the beginning of a long process, and the end on some of this is still unclear," said former Representative Jane Harman, an author of the last major surveillance law and now the president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "But the good news is now there's a full debate in the Congress and in the country about our values and how to address security and liberty at the same time."
Ensuring adequate judicial salaries key to judicial independence and rule of law
As I have tried to convey, separation of powers and checks and balances are not automatic mechanisms. They depend upon a commitment to civility, open communication, and good faith on all sides. Congress has certain functions that cannot be directed or initiated by the other branches; yet those prerogatives must be exercised in good faith if Congress is to preserve the best of our constitutional traditions. You must be diligent to protect the Constitution and to follow its letter and spirit, and, on most matters, no one, save the voters, can call you to account for the manner in which you discharge these serious responsibilities. This reflects, no doubt, the deep and abiding faith our Founders placed in you and in the citizens who send you here. Please accept my respectful submission that, to keep good faith with our basic charter, you have the unilateral constitutional obligation to act when another branch of government needs your assistance for the proper performance of its duties. It is both necessary and proper, furthermore, that we as judges should, and indeed must, advise you if we find that a threat to the judiciary as an institution has become so serious and debilitating that urgent relief is necessary. In my view, the present Congressional compensation policy for judicial officers is one of these matters. Judges in our federal system are committed to the idea and the reality of judicial independence. Some may think the phrase "judicial independence" a bit timeworn. Perhaps there has been some tendency to overuse the term; there may be a temptation to invoke it each time judges disagree with some commonplace legislative proposal affecting the judiciary. If true, that is unfortunate, for judicial independence is a foundation for sustaining the Rule of Law. Judicial independence is not conferred so judges can do as they please. Judicial independence is conferred so judges can do as they must. A judiciary with permanent tenure, with a sufficient degree of separation from other branches of government, and with the undoubted obligation to resist improper influence is essential to the Rule of Law as we have come to understand that term. Judicial independence presumes judicial excellence, and judicial excellence is in danger of erosion. So at this juncture in the history of the relationship between our two branches my conclusion is that we have no choice but to make clear to you the extent of the problem as we see it, with the hope your Committee will help put the problem into proper perspective for your own colleagues and for the nation at large. It is my duty, then, to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in more than three decades as a judge, I have not seen my colleagues in the judiciary so dispirited as at the present time. The blunt fact is that the past Congressional policy with respect to judicial salaries has been one of neglect. As a consequence, the nation is in danger of having a judiciary that is no longer considered one of the leading judiciaries of the world. This is particularly discordant and disheartening, in light of the care and consideration Congress has generally given in respect to other matters of judicial resources and administration. The current situation, in my submission, is a matter of grave systemic concern. Let me respectfully suggest that it is a matter Congress in the exercise of its own independent authority should address, in order to ensure that the essential role of the judiciary not be weakened or diminished. You are well aware of threats to the judiciary that history has deemed constitutional crises, such as the Court's self-inflicted wound in Dred Scott or the ill-conceived 1937 Court-packing proposal. These were constitutional crises in the usual sense of the term. So too, however, there can be systemic injury over time, caused by slow erosion from neglect. My concern, shared by many of my colleagues, is that we are in real danger of losing, through a gradual but steady decline, the highly qualified judiciary on which our Nation relies. Your judiciary, the Nation's judiciary, will be diminished in its stature and its capacity if there is a continued neglect of compensation needs.
Global democratic transitions will fail without Supreme Court leadership
Suto 11 (Research Associate at Tahrir Institute and J.D. ~07/15/11, Ryan Suto is a Research Associate at Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, has degrees in degrees in law, post-conflict reconstruction, international relations and public relations from Syracuse Law, "Judicial Diplomacy: The International Impact of the Supreme Court", http://jurist.org/dateline/2011/07/ryan-suto-judicial-diplomacy.php)
The Court is certainly the best institution to explain to scholars, governments, lawyers and lay people alike the enduring legal values of the US, why they have been chosen and how they contribute to the development of a stable and democratic society. A return to the mentality that one of America's most important exports is its legal traditions would certainly benefit the US and stands to benefit nations building and developing their own legal traditions, and our relations with them. Furthermore, it stands to increase the influence and higher the profile of the bench. The Court already engages in the exercise of dispensing justice and interpreting the Constitution, and to deliver its opinions with an eye toward their diplomatic value would take only minimal effort and has the potential for high returns. While the Court is indeed the best body to conduct legal diplomacy, it has been falling short in doing so in recent sessions. We are at a critical moment in world history. People in the Middle East and North Africa are asserting discontent with their governments. Many nations in Africa, Asia, and Eurasia are grappling with new technologies, repressive regimes and economic despair. With the development of new countries, such as South Sudan, the formation of new governments, as is occurring in Egypt, and the development of new constitutions, as is occurring in Nepal, it is important that the US welcome and engage in legal diplomacy and informative two-way dialogue. As a nation with lasting and sustainable legal values and traditions, the Supreme Court should be at the forefront of public legal diplomacy. With each decision, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to better define, explain and defend key legal concepts. This is an opportunity that should not be wasted.
Democracy solves extinction.
Diamond 95 (Larry, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute, 1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, Online)
The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens
, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
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
Gershman 16 (Gershman, Jacob. "How Supreme Court Legitimacy Is Shaped." WSJ. Wsj.com, 08 Apr. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.) 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."
The supreme court ruled in Pearson v. Callahan that qualified immunity for police officers is justified.
Legitimacy is based on precedent, overturning that decisions based on political justifications rather than the constitution destroys legitimacy
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) 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).
Legitimacy and power of the supreme court is key to Democracy
Peretti 1999 (Terri J., In Defense of a Political Court, Princeton University Press) 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.
Democracy's solves nuclear war, terrorism, and proliferation
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) 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.
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.
The GOP will use the aff to show that Dems are weak on Law and Order to win the election.
Zeitz 16 (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) 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.
Campbell is the key to preventing Right Wing Supreme Court appointments- small majority.
Champion 16 (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/) 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.
Upcoming Supreme Court cases will decide the fate of racial bias in the judiciary system.
AAUW 16 (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/) 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.
Japan proves nuclear power ban causes shift to coal.
Andrew Follett 16 ~Energy and Environmental Reporter~, "The End Of Nuclear Power In Japan Is Bringing Back Coal", Daily Caller, 13 Jun 2016, BE An analysis published Monday by Bloomberg states that coal power will become the largest source AND as expensive as electricity from existing nuclear power plants, according to analysis from
Coal causes huge harms and environmental racism—turns case.
GEP 15, "Environmental Racism in America: An Overview of the Environmental Justice Movement and the Role of Race in Environmental Policies", The Goldman Environmental Press, 24 Jun 2015, BE The problem of racial profiling in America relates to more than just police brutality and AND living within three miles of the coal-fired power plants we visited."
10/15/16
SepOct Desal DA
Tournament: St Marks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Montgomery WP | Judge: Rebecca Kuang
Only nuclear desalination from nuclear power solves water shortages in developing countries with limited infrastructure and grids
IAEA 7 "Economics of Nuclear Desalination: New Developments and Site Specific Studies", July, http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1561_web.pdf Seventy percent of the planet is covered with water, but only 2.5 AND figures. These could naturally be avoided through the use of nuclear energy.
Water shortages in developing countries reinforces poverty, famine, conflict, and structural violence and terror – turns case
Cribb 10 (Julian Cribb is a Fellow of the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. He is former Director, National Awareness for CSIRO and Science Editor of The Australian newspaper. He was national foundation president of the Australian Science Communicators (ASC), president of the National Rural and Resources Press Club, a member of CSIRO advisory committees for agriculture, fisheries and entomology. He has served as a Director of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), the Crawford Fund, the Secretariat for International Landcare, CSIRO Publishing, the Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation and the National Science and Technology Centre, Questacon. He was the creator of "Future Harvest" the global public awareness campaign for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Cribb, Julian. "Coming Famine : The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It." Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press, 2010. 15-6. ebrary collections.) Some observers also claim a link between food insecurity and terrorism, pointing out that AND donors may unintentionally have laid the foundation for future government failure and conflict.
Russia economy is on the verge of all out collapse but their shift away from oil to nuclear power has stopped the bleeding. Another economic crisis would cause the destruction of Putin's regime.
Lloyd 16 (Lloyd, John. "When Will Russia Break?" The Great Debate RSS. RSS, 14 Apr. 2016. Web. 16 Aug. 2016.) When will Russia break? A rock bottom oil price, Western sanctions, inflation AND to fail, we'd be deeper in perilous territory than we are now.
Nuclear power has become Putin's solution to the oil crisis and thus the adhesive keeping their economy afloat
Armstrong 15 (Armstrong, Ian. "Russia Is Creating a Global Nuclear Power Empire." Global Risk Insights. Global Risk Insights, 29 Oct. 2015. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.) Russia is moving to create a global nuclear power empire — a bold power play AND for nuclear plant maintenance, but also the prestige that an NPP entails.
A Russian economic collapse causes a revolution which put nuclear weapons in play and cause mass violence.
Motyl 16 (Motyl, Alexander, Professor of Political Science at Rutgers . "Lights Out for the Putin Regime." Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs, 27 Jan. 2016. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.) First, the Russian economy is in free fall. That oil and gas prices AND may finally abandon the imperial aspirations that enabled Putin to come to power.
Countries should invest in the production of thorium small modular reactors (SMR's).
SMRs are cheaper allowing for faster investment, provide a solution for waste treatment, prevent risk of meltdown, and solve the carbon emissions
Rothwell 12 (Rothwell, Geoffrey, Ph.D. Department of Economics Stanford University. "Small Modular Reactors: Costs, Waste and Safety Benefits." NEPI Working Paper (December 12, 2012): n. pag. Print.) While we will not know the costs of building an SMR for a few years AND safe reactors, and provide a basis for reducing green house gas emissions.
The DOE has established new funding to increase the use of nuclear power for space exploration – a tech key for any and all exploration in our solar system and the stars
NASA 15 ("What Is Radioisotope Power and Why Does NASA Use It?" NASA. NASA, 2015. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.) Power is the one thing a spacecraft cannot do without. Without the technology to AND , the possibilities for exploration and discovery are limited only by our imaginations.
The earth is under a infinite number of potential to extinctions – global warming, asteroids, volcanos, and the unknown would lead to the extinction of our species only space exploration can insure our survival.
Newitz 13 (Newitz, Annalee. "We Need Space Colonies for Long-Term Survival, but They'll Be Weird." Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 15 May 2013. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.) When the Russian asteroid became a fireball in the air over Chelyabinsk, destroying buildings AND to start planning solutions now. The good news is that we can.
The US navy has moved toward a nuclear navy which is key for deterrence and naval power projection and heg
Spencer 07(Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and Baker Spring is F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation) Congress is debating whether future naval ships should include nuclear propulsion. The House version AND consider the unique benefits of providing and maintaining a larger nuclear navy.
====US hegemony solves extinction – decline causes it==== Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth 13 (Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College "Don't Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment," International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51) A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far AND that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85
Nuclear power is critical to stop catastrophic warming
Waldman 15 - Susanne, PhD in Risk Communication at Carleton University ("Why we Need Nuclear Power to Save the Environment" http://energyforhumanity.org/climate-energy/need-nuclear-power-save-environment/) The idea we might need nuclear power to save the environment may have seen farfetched AND they provide is typically quite cheap and not sensitive to fuel price volatility.
Global warming causes extinction
Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, "Climate Change and Implications for National Security," International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/) Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was AND investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!
10/15/16
T- Countries
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Peninsula JL | Judge: Chris Castillo Interp: The aff must defend the banning of nuclear power to more then one country Countries means – Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 17 Sept. 2016. plural countries. 1. a state or nation: Violation: Standards: Limits: Ground: Voter for fairness and education
