{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

DDI09-Judicial-Capital-Generic

DDI09-Judicial-Capital-Generic - Judicial Capital DA...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Judicial Capital DA Dartmouth 2K9 1 Judicial Capital DA Judicial Capital DA .................................................................................................................................................. 1 ***NEG ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 1NC - Uighurs ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 2. Plan consumes court’s limited capital – controversial rulings cost capital ................................................... 11 1NC - Uighurs ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 3. Court won’t rule against executive detainees without institutional capital ................................................... 13 Segal et al, polisci professor, 04. Jeffrey Segal et al., Prof. pol. sci. @ Stony Broon, 2004 “The effect of war on the U.S. Supreme Court” www.nyulawglobal.org/workingpapers/detail/documents/GLWP0304Segal.pdf ......................................... 13 1NC - Uighurs ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 Eric A. Tirschwell, J.D., attorney at Kramer, Levin, NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP, et al., April 2009. [ 14 JAMAL KIYEMBA, et al., Petitioners, v. BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI] ................................ 14 5. Breakdown of SOP leads to foreign conflicts ................................................................................................ 14 1NC – ERISA ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 1. Supreme Court will hear the ERISA case this fall ......................................................................................... 15 2. Plan consumes court’s limited capital – controversial rulings cost capital ................................................... 15 1NC - ERISA ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 3. ERISA costs judicial capital .......................................................................................................................... 16 4. Decision threatens the ability of tens of millions of Americans to save for retirement ................................. 16 1NC - ERISA ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 5. Global age crisis risks collapsing global economy and democracy ............................................................... 17 U – Cert to Kiyemba ......................................................................................................................................... 18 U – Will Reverse Kiyemba Now ........................................................................................................................... 19 L – Controv Cases ................................................................................................................................................. 20 Plan costs the court capital – controversial cases cost capital ........................................................................... 20 Controversial decisions cost court capital .......................................................................................................... 20 L – Controv Cases ................................................................................................................................................. 21 Court’s capital limited – controversial decision cost capital ............................................................................. 21 Controversial decisions burn court’s capital. .................................................................................................... 21 Controversial decisions burn court’s limited capital ......................................................................................... 21 L – Overrule ........................................................................................................................................................... 22 Plan costs court capital - overruling cases costs capital. .................................................................................. 22 Overruling costs capital – opposition hurts legitimacy ...................................................................................... 22 L - Overrule ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 Overruling precedent would cause massive public backlash and cost capital ................................................... 23 Overruling leads to criticism and limits other decisions .................................................................................... 23 L – Overruling Frequently ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Overruling too frequently consumes capital and reduces legitimacy ................................................................ 24 (James F. Spriggs, II, PoliSci @ Wash U in St Louis, and Thomas G. Hansford, PoliSci @ UC Merced, Nov 2001, “Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 63, No. 4 (Nov., 2001), pp. 1091-1111) ........................................................................................................ 24 L – Split Rulings .................................................................................................................................................... 25 Last printed 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Judicial Capital DA Dartmouth 2K9 2 Split rulings cost the court capital ...................................................................................................................... 25 (James F. Spriggs, II, PoliSci @ Wash U in St Louis, and Thomas G. Hansford, PoliSci @ UC Merced, Nov 2001, “Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 63, No. 4 (Nov., 2001), pp. 1091-1111) ........................................................................................................ 25 L – Opposing Other Branches .............................................................................................................................. 26 Opposing other branches costs capital ............................................................................................................... 26 (James F. Spriggs, II, PoliSci @ Wash U in St Louis, and Thomas G. Hansford, PoliSci @ UC Merced, Nov 2001, “Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent” The Journal of Politics, Vol.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}