The U.S would be better off without the Supreme Court

Thanks 000ike. As per the agreed rules, this round will consist of presenting my case. Framework Observation 1: Attacks made on the Supreme Court (Referred to as SCOTUS from now on for brevity) must address the Supreme Court in principle. That is, the only fair burden is an analysis of SCOTUS and its methodology, power, and purpose among other factors; expecting my opponent or myself to defend every "good" or "bad" SCOTUS decision is quite absurd and will lead only to meaningless squabble about the meaning of the Constitution from two people who truly know very little about it. Thus, the round must be judged using an initial framework regarding what SCOTUS is supposed to be, and how it fulfills that duty. Observation 2: Non-unique advantages should be ignored, because by definition they can be achieved by less dangerous or drastic means. If my Opponent attacks SCOTUS based off of something that can be fixed in a way less drastic than not having a Supreme Judicial authority, his advocacy disappears. Case Contention one: Supreme Judicial Authority Let us for a moment imagine a United States with no Supreme Court, and what that would be like. To be sure, inter-State disputes would increase; for example consider the following scenario: A gay couple marrys in New York, and moves to Texas where they demand that their marriage be recognized as valid in the state. They appeal to the Texas Supreme Court which, being the only Supreme court that is elected, rejects their claim out of hand. New York hears of this, and their court considers the case and declares that the couples Marriage, since it was performed in a Jurisdiction recognizing SSM, must be recognized by Texas. If such a scenario arrose in the status quo, it would likely be taken to SCOTUS and decided there; without SCOTUS the case is forever in a legal limbo. The major impact behind this is that without SCOTUS, there is no way to settle inter-state legal disputes, because there is no authority with jurisiction over the State courts to settle the matter. Pro is obligated to explain how this could be dealt with, otherwise the resolution is negated by default because affirmation leads to complex and unsolvable legal situations. Further, without a Supreme authority on the matter, interpretation of the Constitution would rely on certain subjective beliefs, that is if the Supreme Court of Texas decided that the 2nd amendment meant that every citizen had to pay them $100 dollars, there is no Supreme Judicial Authority to correct them. Almost 1000 State Laws have been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS over its lifetime[1]. Without the Supreme Court, many of these unconstitutional laws would still be in effect, and certainly for a longer time. For example, Loving v Virginia declared that all bans on miscegenation were unconstitutional, yet Alabama kept its law on the books for 33 years longer until 2000, and an amazing 41% of its citizens voted to keep it[2]. That’s at a bare minimum 20 or 30 more years of inter racial couples being discriminated against, and a large barrier to social progress. Contention two: Checks and Balances I’ve promised not to attack my opponents case right now, but I can assure you that this point of contention will be an extremely significant one. Without SCOTUS, the power of the legislature goes unchecked and they can, quite literally, pass whatever laws they wish. Immediately it will be objected that the legislature will follow the Constitution anyway, but this is an objection made in the light of overwhelming empirical and theoretical evidence to the Contrary; in the period of 1789-2002, SCOTUS declared an astounding 158 acts of Congress unconstitutional according to the Government Printing Office[3]. Further, expecting governments to follow constitutions willingly is nothing but a Fantasy. Hoppe writes[4] (contrasting the early US to today): "Two-hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically. Now, year in and year out the American government expropriates more than 40% of the incomes of private producers, making even the burden on slaves and serfs seem moderate in comparison. Gold and Silver have been replaced by government manufactured paper...the meaning of private property, once seemingly clear and fixed, has become obscure, flexible, and fluid...every detail of private life, property, trade, and contract is regulated and reregulated by ever higher mountains of paper laws...the commitment to free trade and non-interventionism has given way to a policy of protectionism, militarism, and imperialism." In the course of US history, the federal government has grown virtually nonstop, and SCOTUS is the only power that has resisted this. You can XA the GPO evidence to support this, and I’ll provide historical evidence as well, during the progressive era SCOTUS was the only branch of government to resist the unconstitutional meddling that occurred then[5]. The Federal Government needs a power to essentially “keep it in line” or else it is granted virtually limitless power, and the Constitution becomes little more than a historic and obsolete piece of paper. Contention three: Fractionalization Even today, the Constitution is the basic framework for all laws in the United States; and rightfully so because we’ve already seen that SCOTUS routinely strikes down unconstitutional laws. Similar to Contention One, if every State/Jurisdiction is given the power to interpret the Constitution on its own, than the United States is no longer United. As long as we want to live by the Constitution or any social contract for that matter, there must be only a single official interpretation of it, lest we lose whatever common bond we did have. Allowing for fractionalization leads to people in different regions living in practically different Countries; while in the Status Quo States have different laws, what their legislatures are and are not allowed to do is commonly understood—they cannot violate the Constitution! Conversely, with no SCOTUS, each State can have its own interpretation and the common law is gone. Texas courts had repeatedly ruled Texas’s anti-sodomy law as constitutional, where as other states ruled theirs as unconstitutional and the issue was only settled once and for all once SCOTUS weighed in[6]. When you allow every state to view the constitution as it wishes, than you no longer have a united country, and history tells us that when the US was disunited, civil war followed. My Opponent must prove: A. There is an alternate way to assess the constitutionality of laws other than SCOTUS B. There would be another check on the legislature without SCOTUS and C. Every disadvantage he’s presented is unique to SCOTUS. Sources: 1. http://www.gpoaccess.gov... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.gpoaccess.gov... 4. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. USA. 278-279. Print. 5. http://www4.bluevalleyk12.org...(post).pdf 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...