[eDebate] Areas vs. list, let's look at just one listed case to overturn.

Ede Warner ewarner
Mon Jun 5 18:46:37 CDT 2006


More examples.  It's tough when people ignore your arguments.  But here
goes.  I'll keep it simple:  run prison safety runs as an affirmative
advantage for overruling Gratz.  Two things are true:  1) you still have
to defend affirmative action if you topically overrule Gratz, there is
no way around it.  That's what we call predictable negative ground; 2)
This means you can ALWAYS COUNTERPLAN OUT THE ADVANTAGES THAT DON'T STEM
FROM THE GRATZ.
 
Scott's example:  "Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins,
dissenting.

The questions presented in this case require us to resolve two
conflicting lines
of precedent. On the one hand, as the Court stresses, this Court has
said that
"'all racial classifications reviewable under the Equal Protection
Clause must
be strictly scrutinized.'" Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 270, 156
L. Ed. 2d
257, 123 S. Ct. 2411 (2003) (emphasis added) (quoting Adarand
Constructors, Inc.
v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 224, 132 L. Ed. 2d 158, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995)).
On the
other, this Court has no less categorically said that "the [relaxed]
standard
of review we adopted in Turner [v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 L. Ed. 2d
64, 107 S.
Ct. 2254 (1987),] applies to all circumstances in which the needs of
prison
administration implicate constitutional rights." Washington v. Harper,
494 U.S.
210, 224, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178, 110 S. Ct. 1028 (1990) (emphasis added).
Emphasizing the former line of cases, the majority resolves the
conflict in
favor of strict scrutiny. I disagree. The Constitution has always
demanded less
within the prison walls. Time and again, even when faced with
constitutional
rights no less "fundamental" than the right to be free from
state-sponsored
racial discrimination, we have deferred to the reasonable judgments of
officials experienced in running this Nation's prisons. There is good
reason
for such deference in this case. California oversees roughly 160,000
inmates,
in prisons that have been a breeding ground for some of the most
violent prison
gangs in America--all of them organized along racial lines. In that
atmosphere,
California racially segregates a portion of its inmates, in a part of
its
prisons, for brief periods of up to 60 days, until the State can
arrange
permanent housing. The majority is concerned with sparing inmates the
indignity
and stigma of racial discrimination. Ante, at ____ - ____, 160 L. Ed.
2d, at
959-960. California is concerned with their safety and saving their
lives"

There ya go, folks, chew on that distinction for a while. I have a
feeling that
the framer sof the resolution were not thinking about prison safety
issues when
they decided to list Bollinger. So, now my plan overturns Bollinger on
this
point tot he extent that I prevent prisoners from being gang raped in
prison
and a prison riot/civil war scenario. Not quite Affirmative Action in
college,
is it?

Ede's response:  Scott doesn't cite the case the above quote is from. 
Let's say Prisoners of America vs. ATF.  You can counterplan out the
prison discussion by overruling THIS CASE (Prisoners of America).  Then
because the aff still has to defend Gratz and what their overrule means
for affirmative action, then you have that ground to debate the aff. 
The prisons advantage is no longer relevant and the aff must debate the
core issues of the case.
 
Now perhaps the tricky aff says the standard they overrule won't affect
Affirmative Action.  Then you run overrule the decision topicality.  You
argue that any topicality interpretation that doesn't explode the topic
requires the aff to OR the major outcome of the case in question.  For
Gratz it was affirmative action in education.  Even if Gratz is
bi-directional, you should be able to argue that fair ground means that
need to change the outcome of the decision and not the process.  
 
I'm working on my topicality arguments but overrule is clearly used in
the context of outcomes and not process.  In other words, if I change a
standard in how Gratz gets evaluated but still decide it doesn't justify
an increase in affirmative action protection, I've got an argument. 
Would it have been better with qualifiers in the topic to that effect? 
Probably.  Is this argument winnable with the most generic definitions
of overrule and decision?  I think so because any other interpretation
explodes the topic.  But who knows.  I won't make another post without
some evidence, and frankly I've made my point as well as I could.  Folks
either agree or disagree and that's okay.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060605/51257d8d/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list