The Instigator
CiRrO
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
qwarkinator
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Resolved: Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 4819
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

CiRrO

Pro

I affirm: Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court.

[Definitions]

Judicial activism: the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs.

[Contentions]

Contention I: Judicial Activism violates the constitution.

Contention II: Judicial Activism is a form of legal subjectivity.

Contention III: Judicial Activism undermines the idea of a Democratic-Republic.

*In the following rounds these contentions will be explained full*

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
qwarkinator

Con

"Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court."

"These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation"

Here is an example of good judicial activism, Brown vs. Board of Education. By your definition a judicial activist is anyone who creates or amends legislation. So your saying when the Supreme Court said segregation was illegal, they were misguided. When they said African American school children could attend school with Whites they created a law that had not been previously enforced, therefore becoming judicial activists. I, however, say in this case judicial activism is a satisfactory idea because segregation goes against the constitutional idea that all men are created equal. Therefore judicial activism can be good barring it follows the constitution thus I see no problem with the president selecting a judicial activist for the United States Supreme Court.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrO

Pro

I will attack my opponents case then move to crystallize my own.

"Here is an example of good judicial activism, Brown vs. Board of Education. By your definition a judicial activist is anyone who creates or amends legislation. So your saying when the Supreme Court said segregation was illegal, they were misguided. When they said African American school children could attend school with Whites they created a law that had not been previously enforced, therefore becoming judicial activists. I, however, say in this case judicial activism is a satisfactory idea because segregation goes against the constitutional idea that all men are created equal. Therefore judicial activism can be good barring it follows the constitution thus I see no problem with the president selecting a judicial activist for the United States Supreme Court."

My Response: You can drop this whole argument. Why? Simple. Brown vs. Board of Education wasn't an act of judicial activism. The decision in this court case didn't: 1) create a new law, 2) or didn't amend a preexisting. It merely interpreted the clause: all men are created equal. Interpretation of a law doesn't fit the definition of judicial activism. Therefore, you can drop my opponent's argument.
===============================================================================
Moving to my own case:

Contention I: Judicial Activism violates the constitution.

According to the constitution the duties of the three branches are as follows:

A) Legislative: create or amend laws.
B) Executive: Enforce the laws.
C) Judicial: Interpret preexisting laws.

Essentially, judicial activism gives the legislative power to the judicial branch. This violates the Separation of Powers article in the constitution. The judicial branch is over stepping its powers to include that of which is dictated by Congress. Thus, judicial activism violates the constitution.

Contention II: Judicial Activism is a form of legal subjectivity.

One major problem with judicial activism is that it is subjective, based on the current judge presiding. It does not stand for the will of the majority, and power to the people, and is based on the subjective view of a specific judge. Therefore, with multiple judges presiding, laws would contradict majority, and laws would be created without the consent of the governed. Judicial Activism is subjective based on one man, the judge.

Contention III: Judicial Activism undermines the idea of a Democratic-Republic.

Judicial Activism strips away the purpose of a government for, by and of the people. Essentially, judicial activism takes away the power given to them and to the elected officials of Congress. It makes our country into a dictatorship run by the court system. Congress was given the power to make, and amend laws, based on what the people want. Judicial Activism undermines this a lot.

I stand ready for the next round.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
qwarkinator

Con

2) or didn't amend a pre existing.

Prior to the ruling African American students and White students could not go to school together. After the Supreme Court's ruling African American students and White students were permitted to go to school together. If this isn't changing a law it do not know what is.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrO

Pro

"Prior to the ruling African American students and White students could not go to school together. After the Supreme Court's ruling African American students and White students were permitted to go to school together. If this isn't changing a law it do not know what is."

My Response: The legislative branch agreed and made it a law. The supreme court interpreted, then handed it over to Congress. Therefore, it is not judicial activism. Drop this point.
=================================================================================

Extend all my contentions for the remaining round. It has gone unrefuted by my opponent. Thus, he agrees and stands.

My contentions are my voting issues.

I urge an affirmation.
qwarkinator

Con

"The legislative branch agreed and made it a law."

In fact, when the Supreme Court said segregation of schools was unconstitutional black children and white children were permitted to go to school together. Thus changing a law and becoming judicial activists by my opponent's definition. Proving there can be good judicial activists, disproving my opponent's argument. In addition there is no reason for me to respond to the other points he has made seeing as I have already proved him wrong. I will not drop this point since it is my only argument.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
To Xera: I am against writing sources. I believe that a purpose of a debate is mutual honesty. Therefore, I want me opponent and the readers to trust me. I in turn would do the same. This is very naive on my part, however it's my personal belief.

To MYTN: Thank you for pointing that out. If I debate this in the future I will provide some examples.
Posted by MYTN 9 years ago
MYTN
I think it would've helped if the Pro in their opening argument gave some examples of judicial activism.
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
I'm voting pro because as Con said Brown V. Board of Education is his only argument.

It was an interpretion that ruled segregation violates the equal protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While PRO failed to explain this interpretation in detail, he did bring enough of an argument to counter CON allegations.

PRO, it does not take long to find a source for your claims (I typed in "Brown V. Board of education in google, 3rd one down, without even going to the site, said -in the summary- 'segregation violates the 14th amendment).

You were right, but had not provided a source, which DOES hurt your credibililty. Had CON provided a scource and then claimed that since your argumetn was unscourced, he would have won that point, though erroneous, just by defending with facts and proof rather than a statement of what the debater 'knows.'
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
Add to my rebuttal against his attacks that the legislative branch agreed with the supreme court. Sorry, didn't put that in there. My attack would make no sense w/o this. Srry.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by dogparktom 8 years ago
dogparktom
CiRrOqwarkinatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by GreyGeeses 9 years ago
GreyGeeses
CiRrOqwarkinatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jayhawk25 9 years ago
jayhawk25
CiRrOqwarkinatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberty 9 years ago
liberty
CiRrOqwarkinatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
CiRrOqwarkinatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Killer542 9 years ago
Killer542
CiRrOqwarkinatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by olivertheexpando 9 years ago
olivertheexpando
CiRrOqwarkinatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by chiapas 9 years ago
chiapas
CiRrOqwarkinatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by qwarkinator 9 years ago
qwarkinator
CiRrOqwarkinatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03