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

Chris Crowe velcrowe
Tue Apr 11 17:47:13 CDT 2006


I'm honestly not sure what the fuss is about procedural issues on a court
topic.  We sidestep these issues, no matter the topic.



This is the reason you don't say normal means in your plan, or specify a
specific route to overturning a decision, or specify the ruling (5-4 vs.
9-0, etc).  Fiat used to mean we just imagine a world in which the plan
existed, for the purpose of avoiding all the boring crap about its
procedural implementation.  Debates have never been about "how a bill
becomes a law" and it'll be largely the same with the court as actor.  I
don't think the folks who wanted education about the courts meant they
wanted to learn about how cases make their way up the docket, or which days
of the week justices make the clearest decisions, etc.



And process counterplans and debates suck anyway.  The literature is always
terrible and boring and the debates should be about what would actually
happen after overturning a decision is complete.  I guess to me it's just
not even an issue whether or not relevant test cases are on the docket,
close to the docket, whatever.



And "oh well" if part of the topic passes too.  All that would mean is it
was a timely issue, and it's happened before anyway (re: SORT).



-Crowe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060411/b5fe0399/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list