Jump to content
ImpactTurn

Answers To The Courts Aff

Recommended Posts

First - go for generic solvency and impact D: alt causes, no impact to democracy, etc. You may also be able to non-unique it by saying the court ruling in "x vs y" failed to justify international precedent, but no good.

 

Pretty sure the courts can't literally do this:

"mandate the federal government to substantially increase the federal investment in urban active transportation infrastructure."

 

Fx-T at best. 

 

The IL work is shoddy - if we enact this particular international convention, we will enact all these other forms? Spillover evidence is weak. Additionally, there's virtually nothing about why this particular law ruling is necessary. You can counterplan with literally any other ruling that 'solves racism' and access all of their advantages, since any ruling is good.

 

Why should the USfg be allowed to take a greater role in international law? SQ proves that the US is kinda shitty at stuff that's regulated internationally - not signing the Kyoto Protocol, Abu Gharaib, Middle Eastern wars, etc. If we allow the US neocons a greater role internationally that would probably have terrible impacts too - overshoot bad.

 

What's wrong with this CP? I'm sure there's lit that the fed gov't is necessary to actually do stuff

The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in urban active transportation.infrastructure. 

 

Absent all else you could just go for Wilderson..

 

Also, I have a court specific neg file - message me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Courts don't have a funding mechanism. Get a card. (should be in most courts files & in most Goverment 101 textbooks--that it lacks the power of the purse)

 

That seems to prove the FX argument.

 

It seems to prove a total inability to solve too.

 

Advantage counterplan to solve their international stuff. We can just do it.</p>

 

If they say your counterplan would lead to us doing the aff (which they probably won't)....thats probably a decent timeframe differential (say 3 to 5 years). Any timeframe differential is a net benefit to not doing the aff now.

 

Also.....there is the theory that as a body that Supreme Court is less democratic, more centralized, and more authoritarian. This is theoretically a net benefit to the Congress counterplan.

 

State courts might also be a legit counterplan.....net benefit:

1. Feds = bad, etc....

2. Federalism good

 

Also, I'm not sure why their solvency would exclude another actor with large international visibility--ie Congress doing the same thing.

The only problem is politics doesn't link to the court........and it links to the counterplan.

This might also be a way to trip them up strategically.....but something you would want to think about alot before

 

Also.....I'm pretty sure you can get some racism-K links from how they talk about Africa. Or.....you could get Bruckner....which is a K of White Guilt. I seem to remember seeing one of Bruckner's books in Barnes & Noble....don't remember which section or if it was one of the 2 which has his K in it. However, that is possibly an all-purpose tool against such arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, look up this convention, because i think we already ratified it, and the plan just extends recognizing discrimination in transportation under it. Seems super effects T too. Plus the internal links into I-Law and Judicial Independence are so shoddy. I can help you write a case neg too this, it shouldn't be too difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, argue that they need a test case-- cases don't originate out of the Supreme Court ex nihlo ((from nothing). Unlike congress where anyone can offer a bill, the court cannot organically create new law- only rule on the cases that get petitioned to it. Therefore they need a CASE in front of the supreme court (or soon to be in front of the SCOTUS) to make said ruling on. The lack of a test case either is an abuse of the aff fait power, or drains all of their solvency because their agent (SCOTUS) is literally unable to do this action. It also severs them out of immediacy if they claim that the SCOTUS will do this on the next applicable test case. Further, it's a potential shift of agent if they claim that some state shall initiate the case--in which case they're guilty of multi-actor fiat on aff as well. They claim that the court will rule "immediately" in the plantext. Expose their stupidity on how the Supreme Court works. 

 

 

They literally do not have a solvency card that is specific to their Agent. There's a theoretical objection to be made here (because apparently these days, the lack of providing a real solvency card in the 1AC is no longer a presumption-level voter) that goes something like: "Interpretation: The 1AC must contain a solvency advocate claiming that the agent of action is able to do the plan". Look at the 1AC closely, they violate this interp. You can probably figure out why the jurisdiction (or lack thereof) of the SCOTUS is relevant to not only your neg ground, but also to education on both the topic and the SCOTUS.

 

 

 

Counterplan for a constitutional amendment to do the plan mandates.

There's good lit on how a constitutional amendment will force the court's hand and provide durable long-term solvency because SCOTUS decisions can be rolled back by a later SCOTUS. Constitutional amendment is the only way to ensure long-term solvency for the future of the USA.

 

 

IF I remember correctly, there exists somewhere a 9-0 Supreme Court Counterplan that garners net benefits out of specifying a 9-0 ruling.. It's pretty shady, and I haven't seen it around in the last 6 years, but it might be a fun thing to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FX T... FX T everywhere

However they probably get this a lot and are really well blocked out for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...