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

[scottelliott at grandecom.net]

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

>