Jump to content
BenA92

Fiat abuse on Supreme Court?

Recommended Posts

okay so what if:

 

1AC: the aff plan is to have the supreme court over turn a desicion made on a state court level, and then the rest of their case is stemming impacts, advantages and solvency off of the reversal of this case.

 

is their any way for the negative to claim fiat abuse?

 

and then what if the affirmative uses a test case as an example for their plan to hold water? what should the neg do in this circumstance in order to claim fiat abuse or can they at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important to ask the question of yourself, "How could it be considered abusive?"

 

Fiating SCOTUS is fundamentally no different than fiating POTUS or the congress. Now, you need special solvency arguments on the ability of the courts to solve back for policy problems, or you risk violating object fiat.

 

If the affirmative as a test case and solvency, the neg should agent CP (when the aff uses congress, I'm a big fan of XO or Courts, so, just flip it around). Read arguments why congress is bad or can't solve. I'm of the position that SCOTUS agents are fundamentally no different than any other federal agent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, you need special solvency arguments on the ability of the courts to solve back for policy problems, or you risk violating object fiat.

 

huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also important to know exactly what type of case is involved. The Supreme Court has the power to review cases from the highest court in a state when those decisions are based on the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty. (28 U.S.C. 1257) So fiating SCOTUS review of a case like that would be perfectly ordinary.

 

Given that most debate resolutions touch on areas of federal power, rather than state power, most topical cases the Aff could use would meet that standard. If the case the Aff chooses to reverse is in an area of purely state law (e.g. contract law; property law; wills, estates, and trusts; insurance; or professional licensing) then the Neg can break out their standard Constitutionality DA/K/CP since the Supreme Court would be overstepping its bounds by reviewing questions of purely state law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is also important to know exactly what type of case is involved. The Supreme Court has the power to review cases from the highest court in a state when those decisions are based on the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty. (28 U.S.C. 1257) So fiating SCOTUS review of a case like that would be perfectly ordinary.

 

Given that most debate resolutions touch on areas of federal power, rather than state power, most topical cases the Aff could use would meet that standard. If the case the Aff chooses to reverse is in an area of purely state law (e.g. contract law; property law; wills, estates, and trusts; insurance; or professional licensing) then the Neg can break out their standard Constitutionality DA/K/CP since the Supreme Court would be overstepping its bounds by reviewing questions of purely state law.

 

 

 

the "scotus overturning lower case courts on state law" K lit is on fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the "scotus overturning lower case courts on state law" K lit is on fire

This surprises me. Which cases are commonly cited as examples of this? I'll bet that most (if not all) of them are actually proper for SCOTUS review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This surprises me. Which cases are commonly cited as examples of this? I'll bet that most (if not all) of them are actually proper for SCOTUS review.

 

Ian, have you met AndrewC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ian, have you met AndrewC?

I have not (and I don't care to), but since this is a serious educational forum (unlike Misc.), I figure it's best to make sure that novices who come across this thread and don't know Clifford realize that there is substance to the "AndrewC is an idiot" mantra rather than summary, uncritical dismissal of his trolling.

 

Plus, it's really fun to see him get into an argument that he can't win, and then get re-banned right as he digs his hole even deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Plus, it's really fun to see him get into an argument that he can't win, and then get re-banned right as he digs his hole even deeper.

 

 

it was a sarcastic comment demonstrating that part of your post was non sense.

 

how'd you miss that??

Edited by anon159

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiating that the Supreme Court hear a case originating in a lower state court seems theoretically problematic. The best argument is limits: there are THOUSANDS of cases in the federal court system. Add every single case looked at on the stte court level those limits would explode. I cannot emphasize enough the magnitude of the judiciary system.

 

I suppose the affirmative response is that a solvency advocate would check abuse. However, good luck finding solvency advocate for some state court social service case that really recommends it go ll the way to the Supreme Court...the ILs to advantages would have to be shady, I doubt there's many in depth articles on such small cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is one thing to argue the SCOTUS should rule a particular way in a case that is already on its docket, quite another to argue that we can assume a particular case working its way through the lower courts will wind up on its docket, and yet another to argue that SCOTUS can simply issue the desired ruling in the absence of a particular case at law being brought before it. Dodgy, dodgier, dodgiest...

 

Dodgiest of all, of course, is the scenario in which Aff illegitimately fiats the actions of a third party (i.e., whomever brings the original lawsuit), as well as the actions of various trial and appellate courts (all of whom must rule in a particular way in order to get the case to SCOTUS's certiorari review process)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is one thing to argue the SCOTUS should rule a particular way in a case that is already on its docket, quite another to argue that we can assume a particular case working its way through the lower courts will wind up on its docket, and yet another to argue that SCOTUS can simply issue the desired ruling in the absence of a particular case at law being brought before it. Dodgy, dodgier, dodgiest...

 

Dodgiest of all, of course, is the scenario in which Aff illegitimately fiats the actions of a third party (i.e., whomever brings the original lawsuit), as well as the actions of various trial and appellate courts (all of whom must rule in a particular way in order to get the case to SCOTUS's certiorari review process)...

I agree, applying fiat to any such case that hasn't already been decided by the highest state court would be inappropriate (at the very least you would have to fiat that high court ruling in a certain way, which would require fiating non-USFG actors). This state-law strategy would really only be viable for cases that have already been decided by the state's high court and are either on SCOTUS's argument calendar or are pending certiorari (teams would need to fiat the Supreme Court granting cert in that case).

 

To run this strategy successfully, teams should be intimately familiar with the process of how a state court case gets to the Supreme Court and the manner in which the Supreme Court reviews them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiating that the Supreme Court hear a case originating in a lower state court seems theoretically problematic. The best argument is limits: there are THOUSANDS of cases in the federal court system. Add every single case looked at on the stte court level those limits would explode. I cannot emphasize enough the magnitude of the judiciary system.

 

I suppose the affirmative response is that a solvency advocate would check abuse. However, good luck finding solvency advocate for some state court social service case that really recommends it go ll the way to the Supreme Court...the ILs to advantages would have to be shady, I doubt there's many in depth articles on such small cases.

 

The 'lower court cases explode resolutional limits' argument here is not very compelling. In addition to 'solvency advocate checks', the aff makes the argument that in the case of Congressional action, there are no such limits whatsoever. IE, whereas there are thousands of existing court cases, thus with a limit of "thousands", there is no requirement of pre-existence for legislative fiat, so the available affs from Congressional action are "infinite". So if an aff fiats (cert and) a particular ruling on a case that has SCOTUS cert petition pending, it's probably fair.

 

However, as shuman points out, a lot of teams tend not to use existing cases at all - they claim to fiat a test case into existence, or they claim to wait as long as necessary for a relevant test case. Each of those actions is pretty self-evidently abusive, because they claim advantages or avoid links by the issuance of the ruling that they wouldn't be able to claim/avoid if they simply had Congress pass a bill indicating same.

Some teams fiat that SCOTUS issue a ruling without a test case at all, which is probably not abusive, but links to the 'breaks the Constitution/SoP" d/a.

Edited by meanmedianmode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some teams fiat that SCOTUS issue a ruling without a test case at all, which is probably not abusive, but links to the 'breaks the Constitution/SoP" d/a.

 

I've posted about this before. It seems pretty abusive to me to have the Supreme Court rule without a test case. The Supreme Court has no authority or mechanism to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition to 'solvency advocate checks'
I beg your pardon? How on earth would the existence of a "solvency advocate" answer a process objection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've posted about this before. It seems pretty abusive to me to have the Supreme Court rule without a test case. The Supreme Court has no authority or mechanism to do so.

Congress has no authority to re-institute slavery, but I would answer a slavery plan with a constitutionality argument, not an abuse objection. It would be an abuse of its power for the Supreme Court to rule without a "case or controversy" before it in the real world, but I don't think that advocating the supreme court abuse its power is abusive in the debate context--it's just a bad, easily defeated argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not want to say the, “it would never happen debate”, can not be won in front of me. But I prefer a different framework altogether: I think the way debate is framed we are being asked to imagine a world where the aff plan/advocacy “happens” (more completely: “comes to be”) and compare that to a world were it does not and determine which world is better. Hence arguments about why the Supreme Court would never here the case in the real world are irrelevant. They would be answered by my idea of fiat which is much more about should and not at all about would. In fact in my interpretation the more the neg argues that it would never happen the more the aff is winning inherency. In my framework instead of the neg arguing it would never happen they should argue if it did ever happen that would be bad. A DA to the Supreme Court ruling on something without a test case etc. An argument as to why the accepted process is good and better than the process that is being fiated. That such a radical departure from normal means (or however you care to describe your would never happen stuff) is bad with warrants and impacts.

 

As an aside to all of the peoples frameworks with lines and math and all that, that conclude politics is illegitimate ground: In my world should includes the process. And the theory argument here should boil down to which world of debate looks better. There is too much good education in process debates. Policy debate is not easy. Intricate ideas resolved by substance are much better debates than intricate ideas resolved by theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congress has no authority to re-institute slavery, but I would answer a slavery plan with a constitutionality argument, not an abuse objection. It would be an abuse of its power for the Supreme Court to rule without a "case or controversy" before it in the real world, but I don't think that advocating the supreme court abuse its power is abusive in the debate context--it's just a bad, easily defeated argument.

 

I think the slavery issue is different. Re-instituting slavery would be unconstitutional, but there is a mechanism by which Congress passes laws (sometimes even unconstitutional laws). There is simply no mechanism by which the Supreme Court could rule without a case before it. It seems like an abuse of fiat to essentially say "we are going to create a mechanism and power for the Supreme Court to take an action." If you can do that, why not just have the Department of Transportation issue a ruling on a case?

 

Which isn't to say there aren't lots of other good arguments against the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there are THOUSANDS of cases in the federal court system. Add every single case looked at on the stte court level those limits would explode.

Um, Not limitless - finite number of solvency advocates for specific mechanisms - and only a finite number of cases that have literature related to social services for persons in poverty.

 

However, good luck finding solvency advocate for some state court social service case that really recommends it go ll the way to the Supreme Court

This only proves my point above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the slavery issue is different. Re-instituting slavery would be unconstitutional, but there is a mechanism by which Congress passes laws (sometimes even unconstitutional laws). There is simply no mechanism by which the Supreme Court could rule without a case before it. It seems like an abuse of fiat to essentially say "we are going to create a mechanism and power for the Supreme Court to take an action." If you can do that, why not just have the Department of Transportation issue a ruling on a case?

 

Which isn't to say there aren't lots of other good arguments against the plan.

Of course the Supreme Court doesn't need an on-topic case before it. There is no practical limitation from the Court throwing in a footnote to a First Amendment case saying "We also decided that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. All lower courts are bound by this holding." In practice, the court does not do this (because it would be unconstitutional), but there really isn't any barrier to it doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In practice, the court does not do this (because it would be unconstitutional), but there really isn't any barrier to it doing so.
Aside from the justices' oaths of office, impeachment proceedings, etc. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from the justices' oaths of office, impeachment proceedings, etc. ;)

How does that matter at all? My point was that the Court could do that, just as the Congress could re-institute slavery. I did not say that no negative consequences would result or that the decision would not be subject to checks from other branches of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course the Supreme Court doesn't need an on-topic case before it. There is no practical limitation from the Court throwing in a footnote to a First Amendment case saying "We also decided that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. All lower courts are bound by this holding." In practice, the court does not do this (because it would be unconstitutional), but there really isn't any barrier to it doing so.

 

Do you really think that would have binding effect? Of course, we'll never know, since I don't think it's happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think that would have binding effect? Of course, we'll never know, since I don't think it's happened.

It would have as much binding effect as the Supreme Court gives it. Rightly or wrongly, all lower courts are bound by the Supreme Court's rulings. Lower courts that don't abide will just get reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...