Empathy, Race and Upbringing" are important attributes for a Supreme Court Justice Nominee

In reference to Hodari D. I must make clear the issue before the court was the admittance of evidence. I may not have been clear when I presented this matter, but the appeal hinged on whether the cocaine was admitted as evidence and I do agree the seizure of person was a focal point, but the end goal of the defense was to throw out the drugs under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. If the seizure was unlawful, the drugs would not be admitted. I chose this case because it is close one and I still stand by the prospect that both the majority and the dissent fit within the framework of the 4th Amendment. My opponent states in reference to my argument of a more diverse court, "The first statement is a reiteration of an old urban legend. i. e. diversity = better. Not in just some instances, but in all aspects. We are told to take this as truth while existing in the absence of any real proof. " I provided the reasons why a more diverse court will give a more reasoned opinion concerning objective standards within the framework of the Constitution. I can only let the voters decide, as I hold urban legends to be a fun subject, but I do not rely upon them. My opponent asks, "What is THE shifting opinion? Who determines the direction of the shift? Who tells us where that shift has left us? I know one thing. My opinion has not shifted at all on the 4th amendment and my opinion is based on the founding position. " The 4th Amendment has shifted considerably since the founding fathers wrote it. Violated? No, the frame is there, but we have moved within it. The opinion may have shifted in Silverthorne Lumber CO. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, when Justice Holmes stated, "The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all. " Maybe a shift occurred with Rochin v. People of California 242 U. S. 165, or further with Mapp v. Ohio, 267 U. S. 643, to most famously Miranda v. Arizona 384 U. S. 436. All these seminal cases present a shift within the framework, and no one shifting opinion can cover the complexity of the jurisprudence put forth under a simply written yet complicated Amendment. I cannot answer my opponent's question, and do not think anyone else can either. In addition, if my opponent knows THE founding position on the 4th Amendment, he needs to share it with the century's worth of legal scholars who have dedicated their careers to studying it. My opponent states, "If CA v. Hodari D. were instead the US v. Hodari D. , and the situation actually fell under the authorities granted to the federal government, I believe the majority opinion would have been based on sound common law. " With all due respect to my opponent, we do not have a federal common law. Erie railroad is a 1L's nightmare. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... And before anyone thinking this is only in reference to civil matters, we don't have a criminal common law at all (state or federal). Please see the principles of legality for an understanding as to why. My opponent states, "So let us say that the makeup of the court at the time was different. And let say the majority signed on with J. Stevens. My opponent says of the two opinions, ". .. both are constitutionally sound. " So he would accept either answer as the truth? Only if he believes that the law set by The People conforms to the judgement [sic] of unelected servants. I believe the Law is superior to them. " I addressed this point in the previous round. I will add, I never once stated the law provides "truth" in any respect. I am not sure what my opponent thinks the law "set by The People" is, but he is welcome to share it in the comments section. My opponent states, "Therefore, a thorough understanding of our history, philosophy and law, coupled with the integrity to set aside personal opinions in favor of the intention of the people. The supreme court, nor the opinions of it's [sic] occupiers, were endowed with the burden to be the barometer of the people's intentions. " I addressed this point, also in the previous round. So long as objective standards arise within Constitutional boundaries, the SCOTUS are endowed by the privileges granted in the Constitution to keep those objectives standards within the boundaries, no matter how much they shift within. My opponent states in reference to Justice Clarence Thomas, "Yet, we are told to believe his opinions are not representative of his particular constituency(for lack of a better word). Is he not doing his job? Does the court require another black man, with opinions more in line with what we are told black people want. I never mentioned Justice Thomas, and yes, as a rags-to-riches black man, he does add diversity to the court. At no point in this debate did I insinuate otherwise, and I think he is doing a fine job as his background and legal training have helped his position. He was mentioned as a side note in the Sotomayor article I linked in my first round. I saw no need to mention him, as I focused on another issue (Hodari D). At this point the voters must decide as I think I showed a firm case concerning empathy, race, and upbringing are important in an appellate court judge so long as Constitutionally permitted objective standards are present in the appellate system.