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

Ede Warner ewarner
Wed Jun 7 17:50:38 CDT 2006



>>> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> 6/6/2006 4:11:59 PM >>>
I misstated one thing: its Ms. Gratz, not Mr. Gratz.

Look Ede,

I too would love to see debates on AA. I would also like to see debates
on porn
and hate speech. But what I do not like are debates in which
affirmatives get
to run and hide away from the "intended" topic. That's all I am saying.
The
list topics, as worded, allow affirmatives to run for cover. Every
example I
have given has come from a court case. it's not like I am writing
hypotheticals.

You never answered the distinction I have made between a decsion and a
judgment.
A judgment applies only to those particular persons in that particular
case. A
decision is the basis of the judgment--and it also serves as precedent
in other
cases. A critical distinction to understand if you are looking at the
number of
potential affirmative case areas that can be gnerated from a topic.
Making
"judgment" synonomous with "decision" would over limit the topic
because you
would, literally, have only five cases and, literally, only a few
people
affected by the plan. Only those affected by the judgment would
benefit. For
example, in Bollinger, overturning the judgment would mean that Ms.
Bollinger
and Mr.Hamacher are not entitled to relief under Title VII.
it is overturning the decision, because of its precedent, that allows
one to
claim AA advantages on a societal level. (BTW, cute case idea,
literally
overturn the decision as Ede has defined it, claim advantages only to
ms. gratz
and then argue there are no societal impacts.)

I agree and disagree.  As I just said in the last post with Joe, Brown
won the judgement.  The decision set a direct standard for education--if
other school districts pursue separate but equal, they will lose.  It
set a potential precedent for other content areas, but that can't be
determined until later cases come, and are decided by application of
Brown.  The Brown decsion doesn't encompass both, only the direct
standard.  The Court didn't say in Brown--separate but equal doesn't
apply in any area of our society...just like Plessy didn't go further
than transportation.  The Court may plan on applying the precedent, but
that certainly isn't stated in that case, even if language sets it up. 
Brown didn't broader it's judgement beyond public education, hell I'm
not sure it even applied to HBCU's or post-secondary education.  That
occurs in a series of later decisions by lower courts and the supreme
court where the standard set in Brown is applied in other cases that
later courts see as similar to what happened in Brown.  That is why I
think it is an easy bright line between the judgement (Brown) and the
decision itself
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060607/3e3c1b54/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list