homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat May 27, 2017 10:12 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:20 pm
Posts: 3
Home Schooled: Yes
So this my first case i wrote and i was wondering if anyone had any ideas for or against it.

what it does is locks the number of SCOTUS judges at 9 and once a year a justice will go before the senate where the senate will decide if a justice is still in good behavior.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1365
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Congress already determines whether or not justices meet the criterion of good behavior. Putting an emphasis on this will do a whole lot of nothing and will unnecessarily clog Senate floor time.

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1374
Home Schooled: Yes
Technically, one could argue that this would increase accountability by encouraging screening. I don't think this is a bad idea at all, actually. It's a perfectly decent case, and you can probably win some rounds with it.

However, my main problem with it is this: what's wrong with SCOTUS in the first place? What kind of "bad behavior" is there? There isn't any criminal behavior. There are some issues with recusal, but those seem to be a bit exaggerated. Ultimately, the only real problem with SCOTUS is that the people on it don't interpret the Constitution very well (at least in my opinion), because they don't care about framers' intent.

But here's the problem: if "bad decisions" is your only harm, then the plan doesn't solve this. All it does is make Congress responsible for impeaching justices who it thinks are bad interpreters of the Constitution. And sure, maybe SCOTUS justices are bad interpreters, but Congress is a thousand times worse. The people in Congress aren't even Constitutional scholars, PLUS they care little or nothing for framers' intent.

EDIT: Also, this thread really should be under "NCFCA Resolution," not General Debate. I'd move it there now, only I don't want the author to not be able to find where it is. :P

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:20 pm
Posts: 3
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
EDIT: Also, this thread really should be under "NCFCA Resolution," not General Debate. I'd move it


i just joined and i'm not yet sure how to do that yet. :(

Hammy wrote:
However, my main problem with it is this: what's wrong with SCOTUS in the first place? What kind of "bad behavior" is there? There isn't any criminal behavior. There are some issues with recusal, but those seem to be a bit exaggerated. Ultimately, the only real problem with SCOTUS is that the people on it don't interpret the Constitution very well (at least in my opinion), because they don't care about framers' intent.


there are actually three reasons for this case that have stated in he case.

1: break there oaths with no punishment
2: SCOTUS decides when they are to old to work and often work to long
3: lack of checks and balances

_________________
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain ;)

"One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well." Virginia Woolf :ugeek:


Isaiah Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1365
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
righteousone wrote:
1: break there oaths with no punishment

Congress can already punish them but they aren't.

righteousone wrote:
2: SCOTUS decides when they are to old to work and often work to long

Congress can remove them already.

righteousone wrote:
3: lack of checks and balances

Congress has absolute impeachment power over SCOTUS already.

I get the point of the case, but none of these harms really work. I think it would be better to approach it from a stand point of the benefit of refreshers rather than what the SCOTUS does wrong.

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:20 pm
Posts: 3
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
righteousone wrote:
1: break there oaths with no punishment

Congress can already punish them but they aren't.

righteousone wrote:
2: SCOTUS decides when they are to old to work and often work to long

Congress can remove them already.

righteousone wrote:
3: lack of checks and balances

Congress has absolute impeachment power over SCOTUS already.


according to the Constitution article 2 section 4
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

so scotus can only be impeached because of breaking there oaths. but old age and checks and balances don't fall under the punishment of impeachment.according to the constitution the senate cant do anything to justices but impeach them so then congress doesn't have complete control of the supreme court.

_________________
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain ;)

"One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well." Virginia Woolf :ugeek:


Isaiah Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1374
Home Schooled: Yes
:Moved:

righteousone wrote:
so scotus can only be impeached because of breaking there oaths. but old age and checks and balances don't fall under the punishment of impeachment.according to the constitution the senate cant do anything to justices but impeach them so then congress doesn't have complete control of the supreme court.

1) So you're amending the Constitution then? How does your plan allow them to be removed for old age all of a sudden?
2) Congress can technically already remove them for old age. Or for almost any other reason. If you look at the part of the Constitution you just quoted, it says that they can be impeached for "Misdemeanors," which at the time of the Cosntitution's writing simply meant "bad acts." So Congress can technically already remove them for anything that it considers "bad." It just never does. :P

Quote:
1: break there oaths with no punishment

How so? Examples?

Quote:
3: lack of checks and balances

What would Congress be checking exactly?

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 649
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
I read a while back (in some brief that was quoting a Harvard paper on debate theory) the situations in which minor-repair counter-plans were acceptable and there were two scenarios:
1) There is a lack of funding
2) There is a lack of enforcement
The idea behind this is that the Negative team isn't responsible for defending times when the law is simply disregarded or a policy that is minor enough that needs just an influx in funding to solve for the problem. This is the problem I see with the case. You are trying to "fix" for a mindset issue that is simply a lack of enforcement.
The same problem that exists now will exist under your new case (Who is going to define what bad behavior is? Who is going to actually enforce that definition? What accountability is there for that? How broadly can this interpretation be made?). The fact of the matter is that the checks and balances exist, they just aren't used, and you can't solve for the mindset that is there.
You are trying to exercise a certain muscle of the United States government by installing work-out-apps on your phone and buying a fit-bit and dumbbells, but so long as the government has the mindset to refuse these, they will continue to not "work out." #analogiesarestupid

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited