Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Okay

About skully

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 02/08/1990

Profile Information

  • Biography
    my best ideas come at night
  • Location
    ann arbor
  • Interests
    typical things
  1. i debated policy debate in high school and coached for my old high school for a 1 1/2 years. i'm now in the marine corp stationed at camp Lejuene, would love to volunteer for some weekends or something when the season started up in the fall or help out before hand. don't have my car down here yet so it could not be immediately.
  2. i was not questioning the validity of the supreme court as an actor its how the plan text is written, if you would supply your plan text i would be happy to answer back with a strat ok this is the plan i see as abusive: Plan: "The United States Supreme Court should rule that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Temporary Assistance for Needy Families from restricting social services based on marital or reproductive choices." reasons for are the lack of a test case written into the plan text, if there is no test case that means sua sponte is the way the aff plan will be carried out this is unpredictable to the neg due to the exploded research burden, the neg would have to research everything and anything related to social services and poverty. not only that but sua sponte is also bad,it makes courts activist and decisions are rolled back. it makes legal debate generic and null of education, it does not teach anyone on how the courts actually work, also not specifying a test case allows them to fiat through solvency. hope this answers your argument. fox on socks if you are referring to this plan text i have not seen this one at all and don't know how the case operates but i would have to say that if the decision in the lower court went through all the steps to get to the supreme court and that the aff wanted the ruling overturned to allow for solvency then is fine, but if the supreme court according to plan text is just choosing decisions from the lower courts and over ruling them then this abusive for all the reason i have stated throughout this thread. the aff would have to prove that all necessary steps were taken and only the supreme court is left to avoid the argument and to stay legit.
  3. states c/p sucks everyone knows it.
  4. the point of your aff is "I'm ridiculous" so we will be to
  5. the evidence clearly says that congress has reversed supreme court decisions, this is overturning the supreme court. 2. congress does not have to overrule the court opinion if the decision made by the court is made void then thats it, the opinions are the opinions and nothing more, they hold no legal basis. 3. i believe we are confusing 2 different but similar plan texts.
  6. 1. Cases decided sua sponte empirically are overturned and not shown as much judicial deference—this turns case Adam A. Milani** and Michael R. Smith 2002 (Assistant Professor, Mercer University School of Law, Associate Professor, Mercer University School of Law; 69 Tenn. L. Rev. 245, *) Like dicta, an issue decided sua sponte has not been "considered in its full extent" 347 because it has not been briefed and argued by the parties. At least two Supreme Court justices have recognized this, and have used this comparison to support their conclusions that decisions reached sua sponte are entitled to less deference. 348 In Monell v. Department of Social Services 349 the Court reversed its decision in Monroe v. Pape, 350 which had held that municipal governments were completely immune from suits brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 351 The Court stated that although "stare decisis has more force in statutory analysis than in constitutional adjudication because . . . Congress can correct our mistakes through legislation," 352 it did not prevent the Court from overruling Monroe. The majority opinion supported this conclusion with a number of reasons 353 and Justice Powell's concurring opinion added another: "In Monroe and its progeny, we have answered a question that was never actually briefed or argued in this Court--whether a municipality is liable in damages for injuries that are the direct result of its official policies." 354 Justice Powell noted that while the Court was "hesitant to overrule prior constructions of statutes . . . this is not a case where we should 'place on the shoulders of Congress the burden of the Court's own error.'" 355 Part of that error was deciding the question of whether municipalities had complete immunity under § 1983 without briefing or arguments from the parties. [*310] Justice Powell had gone back and examined the briefs in Monroe and stated that the theory of the complaint in that case was that the city was liable based on respondeat superior. 356 Powell asserted, "Thus the ground of decision in Monroe was not advanced by either party and was broader than necessary to resolve the contentions made in that case." 357Subsequent cases had also failed to directly address the issue of municipalities' complete immunity under § 1983. 358 In fact, the only time the Court "confronted a § 1983 claim based on conduct that was both authorized under state law and the direct cause of the claimed constitutional injury," it had "raised the issue of the city's amenability to suit under § 1983 on our own initiative." 359 Powell recognized that certainty was one of the important values advanced by the doctrine of stare decisis, and any overruling of prior precedent, whether of a constitutional decision or otherwise, disserves to some extent the value of certainty. But I think we owe somewhat less deference to a decision that was rendered without benefit of a full airing of all the relevant considerations. That is the premise of the canon of interpretation that language in a decision not necessary to the holding may be accorded less weight in subsequent cases. 2. Sua sponte decisions risk roll back Adam A. Milani** and Michael R. Smith 2002 (Assistant Professor, Mercer University School of Law, Associate Professor, Mercer University School of Law; 69 Tenn. L. Rev. 245, *) Justice Souter stated that "sound judicial decisionmaking requires 'both a vigorous prosecution and a vigorous defense' of the issues in dispute, and a constitutional rule announced sua sponte is entitled to less deference than one addressed on full briefing and argument." 380 He then said while he was not suggesting that the Smith Court lacked the power to announce its rule, I think a rule of law unnecessary to the outcome of a case, especially one not put into play by the parties, approaches without more the sort of dicta . . . [*313] which may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but which are not controlling." 381 Future litigants faced with adverse sua sponte decisions should seize on Justices Powell's and Souter's statements and argue that, like dicta, they are entitled to less deference as precedent. Indeed, the litigants can argue that such decisions should be viewed as even weaker than dicta. It is possible that an issue referred to in dicta may have been tangentially addressed by the court and the parties, either in the briefs or oral argument. Thus, while the issue may have been "rendered without benefit of a full airing of all the relevant considerations," 382 the court did receive some input from the parties on the issue. When a court decides a case sua sponte, however, there has been no airing of the relevant considerations at all. As discussed above, this is inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the adversary system; that is, advocates will uncover and present more useful information and arguments to the decision maker than can be developed by the court on its own. Litigants faced with an adverse sua sponte decision should argue that they are entitled to the opportunity to make those arguments.
  7. 1. Congress can functionally overturn Supreme Court decisions Puro, 2000: [stephen PUro - Professor Political Science and Public Policy, Saint Louis University, 2000, “SYMPOSIUM CONGRESS: DOES IT ABDICATE ITS POWER?: CONGRESS-SUPREME COURT RELATIONS: STRATEGIES OF POWER”, 19 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 117, 2000 pg. ] The 1950s and 1980s featured statutory and constitutional conflict between the Court and Congress. In general, Congress and the Court had different ideological positions on many issues, including government actions against persons accused of subversive activities and the scope of civil rights laws. Congress established an institutional voice that regularly reversed Supreme Court decisions. To give examples, in the late 1950s Congress authorized a more conservative interpretation of suspected individuals' rights against government investigations. The Supreme Court recognized this interpretation's stability and certainty by reversing some of its earlier rulings and restoring investigative power to Congress. In the 1980s, Congress, which opposed conservative Court decisions narrowing the scope of civil rights and liberties, passed legislation to broaden civil rights protections, especially those of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For example, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established that programs receiving federal funds could not discriminate based on race or national origin and that federal funding could be terminated if the programs discriminated. In Grove City College v. Bell the Court, agreeing with the Reagan Administration, narrowed the statute's application to specific programs only, not the entire institution, in a case technically involving Title IX of the Federal Education Act of 1972. Congress overturned this ruling in the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Congress's willingness to rewrite legislation that has been overturned by the Supreme Court has been limited by divisions within Congress and the constitutional or legislative interpretations of key committee members. Canon and Johnson argue that the Court can make lasting policy interpretations more easily when Congress has sharply divided policy preferences. But when there are solid coalitions opposing the Court in Congress, Congress can enforce its preferences against the Court's.
  8. fiating the supreme court to make a decision based upon nothing is vastly abusive. this is due to that they are not taking a case from the lower courts or from any courts in this matter. according to the aff plan text the supreme court will just up and decide that these restrictions are unconstitutional, based on absolutely nothing. these types of decisions circumvent the entire judicial process. not only is this abusive for the neg cause they would have to research just about any and every bill that mentioned anything remotely about social services and/or poverty. also these decisions called sua sponte-(from latin meaning "on its own will") are seen as illegit, as well as activist and have a great probability of getting over turned. this case is clearly an abuse of fiat.
  9. im pretty sure replicators are not real(yet) so you cant solve. plus it does not matter the most ridiculous team will win under your framework; we adapt well.
  10. states cant solve aff plan version-its done through a federal bill. but i guess the neg could just write their plan text to void out the federal bill and do it through the states legislative systems, but this would be a redundant and pointless for the states to do. thats why the made the federal gov. other then that its quite a shitty case but the aff files are not that bad. my team did all right with it
  11. when can packets be expected
  12. also if anyone has anything that say unrealistic plans are bad
  13. i have a ton of stuff i have done. send me your email. also were do u debate?
  14. the other side: 3. Turn-long term nuclear storage sites like proposed yucca save the environment. senator jeff sessions Feb 2000 http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=178444 The safe long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel—which has no potential to blow up—is a problem we can and should have solved. By passing S. 1287, we will set in motion a well-researched plan to safely solve this problem once and for all and allow America to move forward in meeting our goals: Cleaning up the environment of nuclear waste and reducing air pollution by continuing to allow the nuclear industry to function. 4. Current nuclear weapons testing are worse than proposed storage facility. Amy Corbin September 2007 http://www.sacredland.org/endangered_sites_pages/yucca_mountain.html Yucca Mountain was never deeded to the U.S. government. According to the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty that the Shoshone signed with the government, most of the area now used by the U.S. military for nuclear weapons testing and the proposed waste storage site was explicitly recognized as Shoshone land. However, the U.S. government now claims 80-90% of it, meaning that the Shoshone are unable to control what happens on their ancestral land. Legislators continue to try to persuade the Shoshone to accept financial compensation for this land, which most view as a way to extinguish aboriginal title and preclude future land claims, easing the way for renewed nuclear weapons testing and waste storage, as well as resource extraction. The Shoshone, who have been exposed to many years of nuclear weapons testing, suffer from high rates of cancer, leukemia, and other diseases— revealing the community health risk that comes from exposure to radiation.
  • Create New...