[eDebate] The Harrison '06 Court = Politics Link Card

[Jean-Paul Lacy]

At 10:00 PM 3/4/2007, Harris, Scott L wrote:

>The argument for the context claim in Sherry's post is the allegation that 

>debaters left out a "debaters should argue that Bush gets 

>credit"  qualifier.  The funny thing is that there is no such qualifier in 

>the original evidence ...



I had the same initial impression, but after re-reading the blog, I changed 
my mind.

I guess I'm reading more into the last post on the blog than other people:



Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Hiatus and Evidence
  Two notes:
(1) The reason for my extended hiatus from blogging is that I am clerking 
for a federal judge. Sorry bout that.
(2) To clarify, I do NOT intend that anything on this site be read as 
evidence in a debate. This site is merely meant to clarify certain legal 
questions for the debate community. In my opinion, evidence should be 
peer-edited, or at least edited by someone. Nothing on this site has been 
edited or checked by anyone else. I recommend that you do NOT use anything 
posted here in an actual debate.
  LH
  posted by Lindsay Harrison at 5:35 AM | 1 comments

Monday, November 28, 2005
Vacation from Blogging
  I'll be on vacation and out of email and phone contact until January. 
Save up any questions you have and email them to me after January 2nd, 
2006. -LH
  posted by Lindsay Harrison at 12:32 AM | 3 comments

Friday, November 18, 2005
Does the Court Act as "Political Cover" for the Other Branches?
  While the Supreme Court may have historically been able to act as 
political cover for the President and/or Congress, that is not true in a 
world post-Bush v. Gore. ...


I read "I do NOT intend that anything on this site be read as evidence in a 
debate. This site is merely meant to clarify certain legal questions for 
the debate community" as roughly synonymous with the qualifier that 
"debaters should argue..." (I admit, this may be reading too much into the 
statement.)

That, plus the larger context of a statement from the author clarifying the 
meaning of the quotation adds up to a card that probably shouldn't count in 
a debate. There might be some revisionism, but I don't think there is a 
better expert on the meaning or intent of a quotation than the original author.

(A loss with zero points after *many* reasonable people have made the same 
honest mistake? I don't think so.)

--JP
lacyjp at wfu.edu