[eDebate] Procedural question(s) about the courts topic

Rob Eback robeback00
Tue Apr 11 17:00:48 CDT 2006

I'm sure I'm not the expert Joe had in mind responding to his post but I'm
bored and in a class with wireless connection.  I have not debated a courts
topic, but I have taken enough PoliSci classes to know that the way the
courts work is not an ideal situation for a year long debate topic (even at
West Georgia we have these things called book with this stuff called
information in them -- it's an odd concept but we're adjusting to it ;) ).

The court hands down decisions throughout its term on a WEEKLY basis. Ever
heard of the delay CP? Sure there's "theoretical problems" with it, but I'm
sure there's a few of us who would be willing to hunker down and prepare for
that debate.

Not to mention, that as Joe pointed out, a decision could be handed down
during the year making part of the topic not inherent.

Have you judged any high school rounds this year... there's a relevant
argument called "test case fiat" or stare decisis (sp?) DA that I'm sure
would an issue on a courts topic.

Off of Joe's first problem --
Actually, the court can just simply overturn previous decisions. The only
real constraints are issues of preceived legitimacy. The court very few
times in its history has said "oh wow... did we ever fuck up on that
decision about the meaning of the constitution or federal law." The more
likely tactic of the SCOTUS is to carve out exceptions (i.e. CPs that solve
the case and avoid the stare decisis DA among others) that allows its
decision to be seemingly consistent with previous decisions while slightly
shifting the trajectory of precedent.

On the need to have a case --
Yes, we could "pretend" there was a case on the docket of the court instead
of having affs specify which case in the lower courts they grant certeroria
to. Yet, what happened to "real world" education from debate topics? It
doesn't seem to be real world to bypass a major component of how a
bureaucratic system works. Not to mention we continue the impersonal
bureaucratic logic ("the field of pain and death" if you will) that renders
so much political discussion irrelevant to many of the public (ie. we
exclude people and real issues).

Back to watching some movie in class,

Rob Eback
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060411/184198ea/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list