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

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Thu Jun 8 09:19:35 CDT 2006


Quoting Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu>:

>
>
> >>> <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
>








More information about the Mailman mailing list