[eDebate] FW: Edebate Schnaar

Kuswa, Kevin kkuswa
Wed Apr 12 14:13:53 CDT 2006

 arlee removes himself from the law books to say:

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Lee [mailto:alee at vermontlaw.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:06 PM
To: Kuswa, Kevin
Subject: Edebate Schnaar

Hey Kev, heard about the Courts topic and got interested started reading
some of the posts, wondering if you'd post this message for me.

Don't know why i'm reading edebate, but there seems to be little
justification for the primary assumption that everyone seems to be
making. That being that the default affirmative agent MUST be the
Supreme Court.  I think Joe's and others' "procedural" concerns are
highly legitimate and buttressed by the fact that there will be
ostensibly no correlation between harms/advantage evidence and solvency
evidence for any "plan" that would have the Supreme Court straight up
overrule precedent (with the single possible exception of Roe, you will
have a nearly impossible time finding Law Review articles that create a
discussion of Solvency based on the Supreme Court overturning its
precedent).  I'm not sure if the demand for good affirmative evidence
has completely eroded in the two years i've been absent from this
activity, but if the Supreme Court is overturning its own precedent the
evidence will be uglier than a Brar family portrait. 
My conclusion is to stick with what you all know works (I can already
feel Kuswa slamming his hands on a table screaming "what the fuck?").
The branch of the government that overturns Supreme Court decisions is
usually...drum roll please...Congress.  Whether this be through regular
statute or through Constitutional Amendment.  In fact, given the
constitutional decisions of the bevy of the cases to be discussed and
the needed process of Constitutional Amendment, i think there would be
incredibly interesting new discussions happening in debates.
My Two Cents, didn't see it said, if someone's already made this
suggestion i apologize for redundancy.  I think perhaps this at least a
discussion that should take place and a consideration the topic
committee should take up.
Former UT debater
Former UR coach
Current 2L at Vermont Law School

More information about the Mailman mailing list