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

[Josh Hoe]

Doctor Warner schooling on using the CP out of Extra T advantages.....Its a
happy day in mudville....We agree on segregation inclusion....Dr. Warner is
talking about CPs....Detente is breaking out all over.

Now if Jack and I could just make peace :) (I did keep my promise not to
argue with you about narrow vs braod topics no?).

Josh


On 6/5/06, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:

>

>  More examples.  It's tough when people ignore your arguments.  But here

> goes.  I'll keep it simple:  run prison safety runs as an affirmative

> advantage for overruling Gratz.  Two things are true:  1) you still have to

> defend affirmative action if you topically overrule Gratz, there is no way

> around it.  That's what we call predictable negative ground; 2) This means

> you can ALWAYS COUNTERPLAN OUT THE ADVANTAGES THAT DON'T STEM FROM THE

> GRATZ.

>

> Scott's example:  "Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins,

> dissenting.

>

>

> The questions presented in this case require us to resolve two conflicting

> lines

> of precedent. On the one hand, as the Court stresses, this Court has said

> that

> "'all racial classifications reviewable under the Equal Protection Clause

> must

> be strictly scrutinized.'" Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 270, 156 L.

> Ed. 2d

> 257, 123 S. Ct. 2411 (2003) (emphasis added) (quoting Adarand

> Constructors, Inc.

> v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 224, 132 L. Ed. 2d 158, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995)). On

> the

> other, this Court has no less categorically said that "the [relaxed]

> standard

> of review we adopted in Turner [v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64,

> 107 S.

> Ct. 2254 (1987),] applies to all circumstances in which the needs of

> prison

> administration implicate constitutional rights." Washington v. Harper, 494

> U.S.

> 210, 224, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178, 110 S. Ct. 1028 (1990) (emphasis added).

> Emphasizing the former line of cases, the majority resolves the conflict

> in

> favor of strict scrutiny. I disagree. The Constitution has always demanded

> less

> within the prison walls. Time and again, even when faced with

> constitutional

> rights no less "fundamental" than the right to be free from

> state-sponsored

> racial discrimination, we have deferred to the reasonable judgments of

> officials experienced in running this Nation's prisons. There is good

> reason

> for such deference in this case. California oversees roughly 160,000

> inmates,

> in prisons that have been a breeding ground for some of the most violent

> prison

> gangs in America--all of them organized along racial lines. In that

> atmosphere,

> California racially segregates a portion of its inmates, in a part of its

> prisons, for brief periods of up to 60 days, until the State can arrange

> permanent housing. The majority is concerned with sparing inmates the

> indignity

> and stigma of racial discrimination. Ante, at ____ - ____, 160 L. Ed. 2d,

> at

> 959-960. California is concerned with their safety and saving their lives"

>

> There ya go, folks, chew on that distinction for a while. I have a feeling

> that

> the framer sof the resolution were not thinking about prison safety issues

> when

> they decided to list Bollinger. So, now my plan overturns Bollinger on

> this

> point tot he extent that I prevent prisoners from being gang raped in

> prison

> and a prison riot/civil war scenario. Not quite Affirmative Action in

> college,

> is it?

>

> Ede's response:  Scott doesn't cite the case the above quote is from.

> Let's say Prisoners of America vs. ATF.  You can counterplan out the prison

> discussion by overruling THIS CASE (Prisoners of America).  Then because the

> aff still has to defend Gratz and what their overrule means for affirmative

> action, then you have that ground to debate the aff.  The prisons advantage

> is no longer relevant and the aff must debate the core issues of the case.

>

> Now perhaps the tricky aff says the standard they overrule won't affect

> Affirmative Action.  Then you run overrule the decision topicality.  You

> argue that any topicality interpretation that doesn't explode the topic

> requires the aff to OR the major outcome of the case in question.  For Gratz

> it was affirmative action in education.  Even if Gratz is bi-directional,

> you should be able to argue that fair ground means that need to change the

> outcome of the decision and not the process.

>

> I'm working on my topicality arguments but overrule is clearly used in the

> context of outcomes and not process.  In other words, if I change a standard

> in how Gratz gets evaluated but still decide it doesn't justify an increase

> in affirmative action protection, I've got an argument.  Would it have been

> better with qualifiers in the topic to that effect?  Probably.  Is this

> argument winnable with the most generic definitions of overrule and

> decision?  I think so because any other interpretation explodes the topic.

> But who knows.  I won't make another post without some evidence, and frankly

> I've made my point as well as I could.  Folks either agree or disagree and

> that's okay.

>

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at ndtceda.com

> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060605/25b5ceeb/attachment.html