[eDebate] Areas vs. list, let's look at just one listed case to overturn.
scottelliott at grandecom.net
Tue Jun 6 10:22:21 CDT 2006
So, how is overturning Bollinger to the extent that its precedent undermines
Prison authorities' power to control prisons Extra-topical?
You have to concede that Gratz is being used as precedent by the courts on the
issue of Prisons and equal protection.
You have to conceed that the term "overturn" means to render a decision as
having no authority ragarding a particular precedent. So, If my plan is:
Plan: The U.S.S.Ct. will overturn Gratz v. Bollinger to the extent that its
precedent prevents prison officials from segregating prisoners based on race.
How is this not topical?
I freely grant to you that this is open to a distinguish c-plan. But, so is
every single example you can ever come up with for a topical case.
Focus on the original question, how is this not a topical case or extra topical?
Because if your standard is "must overturn the entirety of Bollinger," then no
affirmative could ever win a debate. Because there are probably 60 or more
fundamental principles of judicial review, federalism, and other issues that
are bound up in Bollinger and that are precedents in Bollinger. Under your "T"
violation, the Affirmative would have have to overturn the principle of stare
decisis, judicial review, Brown v. Board etc.
If you standard is "literature." I'd say every case I cited was from a real
world judicial decision. Its all published. its all avaialble on Lexis with a
key word search of Gratz v. Bollinger.
if your standard is "major precedent," I say, show me where that term is in the
topic? Second, I'd turn it on you because every time a case is cited in a real
world controversy on a real world point of law, it is a major precedent. The
only way to determine what is "major" in a precedent is to see how the courts
are actually using it in their decsions, not how law professors write about
them. My reading of Bollinger, based on actually reading the court cases that
use it are:
(1) Strict scrutiny for any racial classification in higher ed.
(2) Strict scrutiny for racial classifications in any ed level.
(3) strict scrutiny for any race based gov't contracts
(4) strict scrutiny for any race based government program or action
(5) class certification issues
(6) proper standing to sue.
Now those are just a few, but those are the precedents that bollinger is being
cited for in the lower courts and in the S. Ct. itself. The point, these are
all major precedents that i can topically overturn. four of them say nothing
about AA in colleges.
More information about the Mailman