bhr - lopez disads

8/14/2019 BHR - Lopez Disads

1/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

DISADSVS. THE LOPEZ CP

Judicial Taxation Disad

- 2AC Shell.. 2- 1AR overview 3- extension turns federalism NB 4- a2 no federal authority to raise state taxes. 5

Business Confidence Disad (with Court Clog)

- 2AC Shell... 6-7- 1AR extensions.. 8-9

CP Links to Bush Good 2AC.. 10- 1AR extension.... 11- a2 GOP hates state rights.... 12

CP Links to Bush Bad 2AC 13- 1AR extension 14

NOTES

The Business Confidence disad only applies if they read narrow ruling in the CP text to avoid

spillover offense and only for regulations affs.

1


2/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Judicial Taxation Disad 2AC Shell

A. Normal means for the CP enforcement is for the Court to mandate the state raise local taxes

La Pierre 93. (D. Bruce, Prof of Law @ Washington U, Special Master in St. Louis school desegregationcase, Enforcement of Judgments Against States and Local Governments: Judicial Control over the Powerto Tax, George Washington Law Review, 61 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 301, January, lexis)

Notwithstanding this interference with state and local government and with the electorate's power to make basicpolitical decisions about taxes, courts correctly have claimed a measure of control over the power to tax as a meansof enforcing their judgments. In the absence of voluntary compliance, judicially ordered taxes are in fact thetraditional means of executing a judgment against local governments. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus isavailable to compel local officials to exercise their state law authority to levy and collect taxes to satisfy a judgment.17 Thus, the tax increase orders in the two Missouri school desegregation cases would not raise any significant legalissue if the taxes were within the state law authority of local officials to levy taxes. There would be no significantlegal issue even though local officials would be forced to exercise state law authority that they would not otherwisehave exercised and even though a tax that would not otherwise be laid would be levied and collected.

B. Judicial taxation violates the principles of federalism turns back the net benefit

Wolohojian 89. (G.R., partner @ Litigation Dept. of WilmerHale, Associate Independent Counsel forWhitewater, Judicial Taxation in Desegregation Cases, Columbia Law Review, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 332,March, lexis)

[*341] 2. Federalism Concerns and Taxation. -- Judicial taxation compromises federalism concerns by invading thetraditional state sovereignty over taxation. 74 In addition, by ordering state and local officials to exceed theirstatutory authority, judicial taxation also invades the state legislature's authority over the state executive branch. Thetenth and eleventh amendments require a delicate accommodation of the federal courts' powers over a state's fiscalschemes. On the one hand, while state taxation has traditionally been an area in which courts have deferred to state

legislatures, 75 there are limits on the deference that courts accord state fiscal policies. First, a federal court canclearly invalidate a tax scheme that violates the fourteenth amendment, although the standard of proof for plaintiffsseeking to strike down such a statute is extremely high. 76 Second, the Supreme Court has held that neither the tenthnor the eleventh amendment shields state violations of the fourteenth amendment. 77 On the other hand, it will bedifficult to show that state fiscal schemes violate the fourteenth amendment 78 since "the States have the attribute ofsovereign powers in devising their fiscal systems to ensure revenue and foster their local interests." 79 Thus, in thefield of equal protection, the Supreme Court has held that unless a state fiscal scheme is "palpably arbitrary" 80 or"hostile and oppressive . . . against particular persons and classes," 81 it cannot be invalidated by a federal court.Furthermore, the Court has found that judicial interference with state fiscal schemes would have the "great[est] . . .impact on our federal system." 82 An attempt by a federal court to "mandate a particular method or structureof state or local financing" 83 would abrogate the principles of federalism.

2


3/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Judicial Taxation 1AR Overview (1/2)

1. They have no defense to our Wolohojian ev that judicial taxation would gut federalism. We have

a better internal link than the 1NC.

2. And, well isolate an independent impact scenario Judicial taxation policies slay the separation

of powers

Wolohojian 89. (G.R., partner @ Litigation Dept. of WilmerHale, Associate Independent Counsel forWhitewater, Judicial Taxation in Desegregation Cases, Columbia Law Review, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 332,March, lexis)

3. Separation of Powers Concerns. -- Apart from the tension engendered by federalism concerns, there are separation of powers considerations that cautionagainst unfettered judicial tampering with state fiscal schemes. As noted above, taxation has traditionally been the [*342]province of the legislature. This stems at least in part from the historical position that there be no taxation without representation. Although courts continue to acknowledgethis as a compelling reason for placing the taxation power with the legislature, 84 they also stress their structural inability to make informed decisionsabout taxation 85 and the availability of many constitutionally acceptable taxing arrangements. 86 In addition, the judiciary is not subject to the

political accountability that is commonly held to justify the legislature's ability to levy taxes.

3. SOP is critical to protect liberty and guard against tyranny

Redish and Cisar 91. (Louis, Professor of Law and Public Policy @ Northwestern U and Harriet Ancel,Law Clerk to Chief Judge William Bauer, 41 Duke L.J. 449, lexis)

In any event, the political history of which the Framers were aware tends to confirm that quite often concentration of political power ultimatelyleads to the lossof liberty. Indeed, if we have begun to take the value of separation of powers for granted, we need only look to modern American history to remindourselves about both the general vulnerability of representative government, and the direct correlation between the concentration of politicalpower and the threat to individual liberty. n127 [*473] The widespread violations of individual rights that took place when President Lincoln assumed an inordinatelevel of power, for example, are well documented. n128 Arguably as egregious were the threats to basic freedoms that arose during the Nixon administration, when the power of the executivebranch reached what are widely deemed to have been intolerable levels. n129 Although in neither instance did the executive's usurpations of power ultimately degenerate into complete and

irreversible tyranny, the reason for that may well have been the resilience of our political traditions, among the most important of which is separation of powers itself. In any event, it wouldbe political folly to be overly smug about the security of either representative government or individual liberty .Although it would be all but impossible to create an empirical proof to demonstrate that our constitutional tradition of separation of powers has been anessential catalyst in the avoidance of tyranny , common sense should tell us that the simultaneous division of power and thecreation of interbranch checking play important roles toward that end.

3


4/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Judicial Taxation Turns Federalism NB Ext

Your plan would levy taxes to fund desegregation this guts federalism and the separation of

powersWolohojian 89. (G.R., partner @ Litigation Dept. of WilmerHale, Associate Independent Counsel forWhitewater, Judicial Taxation in Desegregation Cases, Columbia Law Review, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 332,March, lexis)

In the thirty-four years since Brown v. Board of Education, 1 the questions in desegregation cases have changed asthe struggle to eliminate the vestiges of segregation continues. Recently, district courts have seen municipalitiesotherwise willing to remedy the effects of segregation unable to do so because state statutes or constitutionalprovisions prevent them from raising the funds necessary to implement desegregation remedies. Some federal courtshave determined in such cases that they may ignore state statutory restrictions on the municipalities' ability to levytaxes and directly impose property taxes themselves. The judicial levying of taxes in desegregation cases implicatesquestions offederalism, separation of powers, and the scope of the federal courts' equitable powers .

Judicial taxation jacks federalism and SOP

La Pierre 93. (D. Bruce, Prof of Law @ Washington U, Special Master in St. Louis school desegregationcase, Enforcement of Judgments Against States and Local Governments: Judicial Control over the Powerto Tax, George Washington Law Review, 61 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 301, January, lexis)

This power to impose burdens and raise money is the highest attribute of sovereignty, and is exercised, first, to raisemoney for public purposes only; and, second, by the power of legislative authority only. It is a power that has notbeen extended to the judiciary. Especially is it beyond the power of the Federal judiciary to assume the place of aState in the exercise of this authority at once so delicate and so important. 421

4


5/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Judicial Taxation a2 No Federal Authority to Raise Taxes

1. The Court can impose taxes to fund remedies despite contradicting state lawsWolohojian 89. (G.R., partner @ Litigation Dept. of WilmerHale, Associate Independent Counsel forWhitewater, Judicial Taxation in Desegregation Cases, Columbia Law Review, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 332,March, lexis)

In the final group of cases, the Eighth Circuit has permitted direct judicial interference in neutral state fiscal policiesin order to carry out desegregation remedies. The court has found that the broad equitable powers of the federalcourts include the power to impose taxes directly, regardless of state constitutional or statutory limits.

2. Federal court authority means they can levy taxes regardless of state laws this is normal means

La Pierre 93. (D. Bruce, Prof of Law @ Washington U, Special Master in St. Louis school desegregation

case, Enforcement of Judgments Against States and Local Governments: Judicial Control over the Powerto Tax, George Washington Law Review, 61 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 301, January, lexis)

In the absence of any politically determined rule of decision, federal courts, which have inherent power to enforcetheir judgments, 644 must fill the gap and determine how, and to what extent, judgments against local governmentsshould be enforced. Given Congress' determination that the enforcement of federal court judgments is a question offederal law, 645 the scope of federal courts' equitable powers to enforce constitutional judgments is undoubtedly aquestion of federal law that requires the formulation of a federal rule of decision. 646 In fashioning a federalcommon law rule of decision 647 for the enforcement of constitutional judgments against local governments, courtscan either adopt state law as the federal rule or formulate an independent federal common law rule. 648 Courtsusually fashion an independent federal rule for the vindication of federal constitutional rights. 649 Indeed, thepresumption of a federal constitutional common law rule fashioned independently of state law is so settled that theJenkins Court did not even pause to consider state law provisions for enforcement of judgments against localgovernments in Missouri. The Court, instead, turned directly to its understanding of federal judicial power to compel

tax levies under the common law writ of mandamus. 650

5


6/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Business Confidence Disad 2AC** (1/2)

1. Narrow rulings gut business predictability and increase litigation

Masters and Waldmeir 1-11-07. (Brooke A., Senior Business Reporter, and Patti, US editor of FT,Corporate America discovers the limits of judicial sympathy,Financial Times, pg. 13, lexis)

Andy Pincus, of the law firm Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, veteran of many Supreme Court business arguments, says narrow opinionsleave a lot of uncertainty - and, given the high cost of US litigation, "uncertainty is a big negative for thebusiness community". The chief justice is committed to deciding cases in the narrowest way possible - even ifthat fails to answer questions that may crop up in further litigation. At a speech in May, he said: "If it is not necessary todecide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more." In other words, he wants the court to decide as little as possible;

that may not be good news for US business. One recent 9-0 ruling is a case in point. In Ebay v MercExchange, decided last May, the issuewas when patent-holders should be allowed to obtain court injunctions to shut down a rival's business, if they can prove their patent has been

infringed. All nine justices agreed that courts should not issue injunctions automatically - but beyond that they agreedon nothing. "Ebay v MercExchange doesn't say anything of significant use to the business community," says Seth Waxman,

former US solicitor-general, who argued the case on behalf of the patent- holder. Mark Levy, an expert on Supreme Court business cases atKilpatrick Stockton, defends the Ebay ruling: the central question before the court, he says, was whether injunctions should be automatic - andthe justices answered that question unequivocally. "That doesn't mean the court answered every question," he says. "But Ebay is an example ofwhat the court is doing well: deciding the issue before it in a way that clearly and definitively resolves (the central question), leaving lawyers and

judges to work out the next generation of legal issues that follow." But sometimes the court's down-the-middle jurisprudence can end up helpingbusiness. In one recent case, Burlington Northern v White, the court issued what appeared to be an anti-business ruling, making it easier foremployees to sue when their employer punishes them for bringing a job discrimination case.

2. ECONOMY

a) Business confidence is key to averting recession

Braithwaite 4John, Australian Research Council Federation fellow, Australian National University, and is the chair of the RegulatoryInstitutions Network, 592 Annals 79, Lexis

The challenge of designing institutions that simultaneously engender emancipation and hope is addressed within the assumption of economicinstitutions that are fundamentally capitalist. This contemporary global context gives more force to the hope nexus because we know capitalism

thrives on hope. When business confidence collapses, capitalist economies head for recession. This dependence onhope is of quite general import; business leaders must have hope for the future before they will build new factories;consumers need confidence before they will buy what the factories make; investors need confidence before theywill buy shares in the company that builds the factory; bankers need confidence to lend money to build the factory;scientists need confidence to innovate with new technologies in the hope that a capitalist will come along and market theirinvention. Keynes's ([1936]1981) General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money lamented the theoretical neglect of "animal spirits" ofhope ("spontaneous optimism rather than . . . mathematical expectation" (p. 161) in the discipline of economics, a neglect that continues to thisday (see also Barbalet 1993).

b) Independently, frivolous lawsuits jack the economy

Cheney 03. (Dick, yeah that Dick, September 15,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030915-8.html)We've achieved a great deal in these two-and-a-half years, but there's much left to do in Washington and around the world. We need to enact

Project BioShield to help protect America against the threat of attacks with biological weapons. We need legal reform because the

strength of our economy is undermined by frivolous lawsuits. And while there are encouraging signs the economy is pickingup steam, the President and I will not rest until everyone who wants a job can find a job. (Applause.)

6
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030915-8.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030915-8.html


7/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Business Confidence Disad 2AC** (2/2)

b) Economic contraction would cause collapse, mass starvation, totalitarianism, and nuclear war

Nyquist 05. (J.R, expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily contributingeditor, The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash, February 4,http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0204.html)

Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term ofPresident Bush, the American peoplewill likely supportpoliticians who advocate further restrictions and controls on our market economy guaranteeing itsstrangulationand the steady pauperization of the country. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmaslisted above. It is easy to see, therefore, that the coming economic contraction, due in part to a policy of massive credit expansion, will have

serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the Democrats). Furthermore, an economic contraction willencourage the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away from the free market system. The danger here isnot merely economic. The political left openly favors the collapse of Americas strategic position abroad. The withdrawal of the UnitedStates from the Middle East, the Far East and Europe would catastrophically impact an international system that presently

allows 6 billion people to liveon the earths surface in relative peace. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market andtrading system that evolved under American leadership, the planets economy would contract and untold millions would die ofstarvation. Nationalistic totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of blame, would once againbring war to Asia and Europe . But thistime the war would be waged with mass destruction weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the centerof global capitalism. Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party gains power in Washington, we can expect to see policies of appeasement andunilateral disarmament enacted. American appeasement and disarmament, in this context, would be an admission of guilt before the court of

world opinion. Russia and China, above all, would exploit this admission tojustify aggressive wars, invasions and massdestruction attacks. A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs. But we cannot do this. As one observerrecently lamented, We drank the poison and now we must die.

2. DISCRIMINATION

Heavier caseloads clog the court which increases all forms of discrimination

7


8/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Biz Con Disad 1AR Extensions (1/2)

1. Extend our 2ac ev Masters evidence says narrow rulings leave uncertainty and increase

litigation costs. The more narrow the ruling, the worse.

2. Roberts commitment to unanimity jacks business confidence and clarity**Masters and Waldmeir 1-11-07. (Brooke A., Senior Business Reporter, and Patti, US editor of FT,Corporate America discovers the limits of judicial sympathy,Financial Times, pg. 13, lexis)

In a land where lawsuits are one of the most important costs of doing business, the US Supreme Court can have abig impact on profitability. For years, the court declined to hear many of the cases that most profoundly affected corporate America. But now it seems tohave developed a fascination with business cases, and that trend is expected to accelerate following the September 2005 appointment as chiefjustice of John Roberts, who spent most of his career on corporate litigation. In the current court term, 44 per cent of the cases involve business - upfrom 30 per cent in the previous two terms, according to Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a law firm expert in Supreme Court litigation. This week the court issued its first important business

ruling of the year, making it easier for companies to challenge patents in US courts. It is poised to rule in cases involving intellectual property,competition policy, global warming and "punitive damages", which are imposed to punish and deter wrongdoing rather than to compensatethe victim.But the experience of the past five years shows that more rulings by the Supreme Court do not necessarily meanmore clarity in the business world. Their impact is complicated by the rarefied institution's attempts to balance twocompeting imperatives: as much unanimity as possible among the nine justices along with enoughbreadth in their opinions to cover a wide range of future legalquestions. Far too often, in other words, Supreme Court rulings create as much ambiguity as they resolve. For example, two

rulings in 2003 and 2004 that were hailed as important victories, concerning punitive damages and claims of overseas wrongdoing, haveproved to be lesssweeping than originally hoped. Several others, particularly in the patent area, were so narrowly written that they ended upconfusing corporate America, leading to more costly litigation. On the other hand, cases initially dismissed as setbacks for business orunremarkable because they did not change existing law have ended up handing corporate America important tools for reducing financial exposure. Consider the 2005 case, Dura Pharmaceuticalsv Broudo, which at first appeared far from revolutionary. The court ruled that investors suing companies for fraud must prove their losses were caused by the fraud and not by unrelated factorssuch as a general market collapse. Since that was already the position of most lower courts, the ruling raised few eyebrows. But because it effectively caps the damages many investors can seekin such suits, it turned out to have a big impact, according to Bob Guiffra, a partner with Sullivan & Cromwell. Recent arbitration awards stemming from the stock market bubble have been much

smaller than they might have been as a result. In other cases, however, the top US court has disappointed. In three of the most importantbusiness cases of recent years - involving patents, lawsuits by foreigners against US corporations, and "punitive damages" -its rulings have produced at best mixed results for business. Corporate lawyers insist they do not expect every ruling to go their way but

8


9/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

say that they want clarity. "I'd rather have a bad decision that's clear than an OK decision that's not," says Steve Bokat, general counsel of the US Chamber of Commerce. "Ninety percent of the time, if you get clarity in a decision with a definitive holding, you at least know what your obligations are, and even if you don't like the opinion you are much less likely to get in

trouble with litigation." Chief Justice Roberts "gets this", says Mr Bokat. "He understands the importance of clarity" and has worked to foster unanimity in theoften fractured court. "On the other hand, in order to get that unanimity the decisions tend to be more narrow: it doesn't giveyou much advice on what to do going forward," he says.

3. Regulatory predictability key to investor confidencePress Association 93

11-16, Lexis

"Predictability is the mother of confidence, and we want government to provide a steady, growing economicenvironment in which we can develop our businesses with that confidence," the CBI conference in Harrogate was told yesterday(Monday) by Clive Thompson, chairman of the SE Region and group chief executive of the Rentokil Group. He added: "We in the CBI are no longer on the outsidelooking in - we're right on the inside. But being on the inside demands we express our views responsibly and completely. It is insufficient to put the business view inisolation without thought or concern for the requirements of the other parts of the economy. "We cannot ignore the demands of health, education, social services andtransport on the public purse. Clearly, tax revenue directed towards business means less resources for other important requirements in the economy. Recognition

brings responsibility." He went on to advocate government focusing on creating an environment in which business could create success. "We don't wantradical changes of policy and direction much loved by politicians. Peaks and troughs have done more to wipe out theconfidence so necessary for investment in research and development, speculative new projects, and investment in plant and machinerythan any misguided political dogma. "Businessmen invest in their businesses and take risks in new ventures if they believe they will beworking in a business friendly environment. Confidence is the key, and for those who have to invest in the future,predictabilityis the mother of that confidence."

9


10/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Biz Con Disad 1AR Extensions (2/2)

C. And, we must first reject racial and gender discrimination silence is complicity

10


11/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

CP Links to Bush Good PTX 2AC

1. States do not have the authority to do foreign policy in the status quo double bind. Eithera) the CP cant solve because it isnt within the states jurisdiction, or,

b) the Supreme Court would have to devolve authority to the states

[insert evidence]

2. And, the latter links to politics

a) Business interests and Congress favor extending federal power they oppose Court restrictions

on Congressional Power

National Review 00. (May 1, lexis)

The modern Supreme Court's federalism is encountering a lot of powerful enemies-and very few friends. Liberalelites and constituencies are reflexively nationalist. Business interests favor a national arena, for a number ofeconomic reasons. Congressmen and senators of both parties cheerfully vote for further extensions of federalauthority, often near unanimously (witness the proliferation of federal crimes, which now include theimpersonation of a 4-H member). The only substantial force for federalism is the conservative movement-including,prominently, the right-to-life constituency that is hoping for a favorable decision in Stenberg.

b) Adverse Rulings Embolden Congress and Media Against Bush

Greenwald 06. (Glenn, Civil Rights Lawyer and Author How would a Patriot Act?,http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_glenngreenwald_archive.html)

Additionally, court opinions historically have a political impact as well as legal effects. Despite the concerted,destructive attacks on the credibility of the Supreme Court by the likes of Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, whohate and wage war on any institution (such as the media) which dares to challenge the Powers of the President,Americans still retain a respect for the Supreme Court as an important and credible institution. The Court'sproclamation that the President has been acting beyond his legal and constitutional authority strengthens thatargument as a political matter.It is also likely to further galvanize those in Congress and the media who have been gradually taking a standagainst the Administration. A Supreme Court ruling that is this decisive, on an issue this significant, is virtuallynever confined to the legal realm, but almost always has impact, often profound impact, in the political realmas well.

11


12/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

CP Links to Bush Good PTX 1AR

Congress Hates Restrictions on its Powers outweighs federalism concernsFrickey, 02 (Philip, Law Prof @ Berkeley, Yale LJ, 5/1)On some issues, like those implicating separation of powers concerns, Congress (at least sometimes) may well havethe institutional incentives to moderate its handiwork in order to preserve the balance of powers. On other issues,like those dealing with Congress's federalism-implicated powers, this investigation may reveal that Congress'sdesire to do that which is politically popular is far stronger than its desire to self-police its powers under

either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. By observing Congress this way, theCourt can sort out whether Congress has the institutional incentives to take factfinding seriously.

12


13/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Lopez Links to Bush Good PTX a2 GOP Likes States Rights

Times Have Changed GOP Base No Longer Supporters of States Rights

New Republic, 5/9/05

As a result, Republicans now support institutions they previously vilified: Whereas they once wanted to abolish thefederal Department of Education, now they want to wield it to advance their own agenda on educational standardsand morals (no wonder that, in four years, Bush has doubled--yes, doubled--its budget). They are willing to concernthemselves with aspects of human life that conservatives once believed should be free of all governmentinterference. In his 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush said, "I propose a $450 million initiative to bring mentorsto more than a million disadvantaged junior high students and children of prisoners. ... I propose a new $600 millionprogram to help an additional 300,000 Americans receive [drug] treatment over the next three years." And theconservative movement, begun partially in resistance to federal intervention in what was regarded as the states'spheres of influence, today has endorsed dramatic federal supremacy over state prerogatives. The No Child LeftBehind Act entailed a massive transfer of power from states to the federal government--not just a difference fromReagan-era conservatism, but its opposite.

13


14/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

CP Links to Bush Bad PTX

1. States do not have the authority to do foreign policy in the status quo double bind. Either

a) the CP cant solve because it isnt within the states jurisdiction, or,

b) the Supreme Court would have to devolve authority to the states[insert evidence]

2. And, the latter links to politics

a) GOP base would love the counterplan states rights rulings cause them to mobilize in Congress

Rosen 06. (Jeff, Legal Affairs Editor @ New Republic and Author, The Most Democratic Branch,August 25, http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/)

JR: Many thanks for the nice words and glad you liked the book. As forstare decisis : like most accounts ofconstitutional history, I don't have a comprehensive theory of when judges should uphold precedents with whichthey disagree. But I like former Judge Luttig's idea of "superstare decisis" -- namely, when a decision has been

repeatedly reaffirmed by justices appointed by presidents of different parties and confirmed by Senates controlled atdifferent times by Democrats and Republicans, it may be entitled to special respect and should not be lightlyoverturned. This resonates with my concern about judicial unilateralism and allows judges to express respect for theconstitutional views of Congress and the President and ultimately the American people. There's room for debateabout how to apply the idea of "superstare decisis" when it comes to the Federalism cases; but generally, as yousuggest, I think judges should defer to Congress in the face of uncertainty. And I'm inclined to think that judicialflyspecking of Congress's power is more of an agenda item for the Republican base than a constitutional principleclearly embraced by a majority of the American people. For that reason, I wouldn't shed any tears ifMorrison wereoverturned.

b) the GOP would credit Bush for the counterplan, since he appointed 2 of the 9 justices

3. Public loves the CP they support court rulings that strike down federal laws in favor o giving

control to the states

Devins 04. (Neal, Prof Law and Gov @ William Mary,Law and Contemporary Problems, June 22, lexis)

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORT BOTH THE COURT'S STRIKING DOWN FEDERAL LAWS AND ITSTURN TO FEDERALISM. Societal forces are inevitably part of the mix of constitutional law. So long as judges "are relatively normal human beings," observed Chief JusticeWilliam Rehnquist, they cannot "escape being influenced by public opinion...." (11) By reading the newspaper, talking with family members, and the like, Supreme Court Justices cannot escape

"[t]he great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men." (12) The Rehnquist Court is no exception. Its anti-Congress decisionmaking is in syncwith public opinion. A. Public Distrust in the Federal GovernmentPublic opinion polls reveal that U.S. citizens today distrust "the government in Washington," especially compared to the mid-sixtieswhen LBJ's Great Society was in full bloom. (13) In 1964, the American National Election Study asked "How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to dowhat is about right?" Atthat time, seventy-six percent of respondents answered "just about always" or "most of the time." (14) By 1995, the percentage dropped totwenty-three percent; in 2001, itstood at twenty-seven percent. (15) Correspondingly, people in the U.S. think that members of Congress care more about making themselves look better than making the countrybetter (seventy-four percent to seventeen percent). (16) They also think that "those we elect to Congress in Washington lose touch with the people pretty quickly" (eighty-two percent to sixteen percent), (17) andthink that Congress is captured by "big companies," "politicalparties," and the "news media" (ranging from seventy-nine percent toeighty-eight percent).

B. Public Distrust in State and Local Government States and localities have not seen a sharp decline in trust during the same period.

When asked how they would feel "[i]f the federal government transferred responsibility for more governmentprograms to your state government," seventy seven percent of those polled in 1995were "very" or "somewhat confident"that their state could do a better job managing those programs than the federal government. (18) Likewise, when it comes to fightingcrime, the public, by a 2 to 1 margin, has more trust and confidence in state and localities than in the federalgovernment. (19) In other words, "[d]isenchantment with the national government did not produce commensurate disenchantment at lower levels." (20)

14
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/


15/15

SDI 08 BHR LAB

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

CP Links to Bush Bad PTX Mo Ev

GOP Base Hates Federal Intrusions on States Rights

National Review, 6/16/03

The most compelling response is that the GOP stands for, and expects of its nominees, a commitment to democratic,decentralized government -- and that judicial "activism" in pursuit of that constitutional principle is no vice. TheDemocrats stand for unlimited national power. The pursuit of that ideology -- by judges or, for that matter, bylegislators -- is a vice. An approach to the Court that acknowledges this would refocus attention where it belongs,and would be broadly consistent with the GOP's long-term interests and agenda. It would also yield an effectiveresponse to the liberal-activism charge and make possible an accurate assessment of the Rehnquist Court's record.

15

bhr - lopez disads

Documents