[eDebate] Rethinking the need for caselists.

Danielle Verney daisy_verney
Fri Sep 15 18:37:49 CDT 2006

Sorry that should read "you have at times stated that
>you think Hamdan overruled Quirin (at least in part), particularly that
>Scalia thought Quirin had been overruled."

>From: "Danielle Verney" <daisy_verney at hotmail.com>
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] Rethinking the need for caselists.
>Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:51:57 -0400
>There are a couple of reasons why I think caselists are very necessary on
>this topic.
>1.  Negative strategies are multiple and diverse on this topic.  Many
>caselists include negative strategies.
>2. Caselists are an excellent way to obtain cites of arguments, which are
>particularly good for smaller schools (like mine) who don't have the time 
>ability to conduct massive amounts of research.  We can mine the caselist
>for arguments that we want or need.
>3. Even if you're correct that there are only 4 cases on the topic (and I
>don't think you are), people are reading different pieces of evidence and
>it's valuable to know who and what people are reading.
>4.  I think you're just wrong about the "there are only 4 cases" claim.  As
>someone mentioned, there are at least 4 ways to run Casey and Morrison has 
>major parts to the ruling.  Additionally, there are several different
>advantages that could be claimed on each of the four cases.  The way I
>answer a Quirin aff that claims terrorism and international law is going to
>be a lot different from the way I answer one that claims racism.
>As an aside from my husband (Tom O'Gorman) -- you have at times stated that
>you think Hamdan overruled Quirin (at least in part), particularly that
>Quirin thought it did.  I am wondering why you think this in case I am
>missing something.  In his Hamdan dissent Scalia is talking about how the
>Detainee Treatment Act should prevent the Court from taking the case, to 
>Quirin should no longer be governing precedent to the issue of the court
>reviewing such an issue by habeas, as opposed to the new method created by
>the DTA.  This doesn't address the issue of legality of commissions or
>detention of enemy combatants the two advantages likely to be claimed by
>debaters.  (Scalia in Hamdi think that the full protections of the 5th and
>6th Amendments apply to American enemy combatants absent suspension of the
>writ -- but he recognizes he is in the minority there)  The Hamdan majority
>clearly allows for the exact same tribunals if Congress passes new
>legislation, and arguably allows for tribunals without further legislation
>if they don't exclude the accused from evidence or throw out the rules of
>evidence.  Finally Hamdan expressly doesn't address detentions.  I find it
>hard to see what you think has been overrulled, could you clarify.
>Tom O'Gorman
>Danielle Verney O'Gorman
>Navy Debate
> >From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
> >To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> >Subject: [eDebate] Rethinking the need for caselists.
> >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:25:11 -0500
> >
> >I support case lists on most topics. I applaud those who work extremely
> >hard to
> >put together quality lists. But on a topic that virtually mandates only
> >four
> >affirmative cases, are caselist really necessary?
> >
> >Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >eDebate mailing list
> >eDebate at ndtceda.com
> >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com

More information about the Mailman mailing list