[eDebate] Fwd: Coalition of the list-supporter

Ede Warner ewarner
Mon Jun 5 20:10:32 CDT 2006


I will only answer your overview to reduce the volume of this:
 
 
1) I don't think people will be overruling another case...they will
just overrule the main case and access unrelated advantages -- This
means X case good is always stable Neg ground, but can it outweigh every
unrelated advantage that can flow from a case?  
 
Right, the aff overrules the topical case.  But if they do so to gain
an advantage from another case or a law review's claim that a standard
in the area of the topical case will hurt another area (which btw is
always done by referencing the application of the standard or precedent
in future cases), that advantage is 1) easy to counterplan out; 2)
probably not solvent if you only reverse the precedent in the topical
case don't address; 3) arguably not topical (if it doesn't change the
judgement of the topical case). You just keep asserting your "outweigh"
argument but you ignore that the c/p will check this abuse.
 
 
2) We cannot ignore the mechanics of the Court.  The evidence we read
will presume the normal functioning of the Court, and while I don't
advocate process args, the core of this topic is the advantages and
disadvantages of Court action as opposed to legislative/executive action
and we need to be mindful of the impacts of precedent.  This is
debateable of course but it means each "case" is really an entire area.

 
Smelko's paper on the topicblog answers all of this by explaining the
process of decision making by the Courts.  Said your famed example is
not an "overrule".  See the answer to Repko.  I feel a bit soiled by
this revelation:  your banking on an obvious argument and the reality is
your big bank position supports me?  We call that a link turn. I don't
want to hear this argument again without some evidence, although I'm
sure that many law reviews that say it is an overrule.  BUT THAT PROVES
MY POINT:  THE BETTER STANDARD FOR OVERRULE DECISION IS HAVING CARDS
FROM THE DECISION THAT EXPLAIN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE
and the plan must change that judgement.  Easy bright line, creates a
more than reasonable amount of ground, even with a large number of
cases.  
 
I don't have any problem with the mechanics of the court, just must
recognize that our game must create a replication that works for the
game.  

 
Smelko even makes the argument that the Supreme Court has a different
standard for reversed vs overruled vs "rejected" as was the case in
Brown vs a vs Plessy.  
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060605/dff4d78b/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list