Legislative override of SCOTUS

Yes. The constitution did establish the power of the court. However, as you have admitted, the court have taken more power than they were given. My opponent cited article 3 section 1 which gives the court all judicial power. I have been citing article 1 section 1 which gives congress all legislative power. Notice there is no room for overlap. Congress in the only branch with power over law. As my opponent has agreed many times, the court itself, not the constitution, decided that the court could have power over law also. This proves that there is, in fact ,a problem in the balance of power, and that the court is far outside of it's constitutional boundary. My opponent horribly entangled the clear meaning of his quote from article 3. I will now do my best to untangle it. He said that the words "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." mean that the court "does in fact have the power to ordain and establish law like congress if necessary." How he got that out of those words I will never know. His quote says 2 things. First, it gives the judicial branch judicial power. Next, it gives CONGRESS the power to "ordain and establish" lower COURTS. If my opponent truly believes that that quote gives the court power to ordain and establish law, he has serious reading comprehension problems. Speaking of reading comprehension, if he had read my plan carefully he would see that my plan IS a constitutional amendment. It does not in any way violate article 3 because it does not in any way limit judicial power. It is a constitutional amendment because it gives a new function to congress, not because it would change any existing clause of the constitution. Under his point about legislative power my opponent make 2 assertions. First, that the supreme court does not make law, and second that the court is a better branch for making law because they are not partisan. First, as far as whether they currently do legislate. Legislative power is power over law. After Marbury v. Madison and Cooper v. Arron it is absolutely undeniable that the court does have power over law. In Marbury they took for themselves the power to strike down law and in Cooper they took power even over the constitution itself! They not only have power over law, they have supreme power over law! In case you somehow have any doubt about whether the court legislates, here is a quote from one more legal expert on the topic. Constitutional appellate litigator Michael Farris, February 17, 2016: "The most important political institution in our nation is the Supreme Court. I chose those words carefully. The Supreme Court was not designed as a political institution. The Court was never designed to make law. It was intended to have judicial power which meant that it was to apply existing law to factual disputes to reach a just outcome between the parties. A branch of government that makes law is a political branch. We have all heard and read the words: "The Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage." This is literally true. The Court enacted a de facto amendment to the United States Constitution in this decision. The same thing is true about abortion and a host of other highly contentious issues of our day. The Supreme Court routinely makes law in the guise of constitutional interpretation." At this point is should be clear that despite the constitution, the court has taken legislative power. My opponent says that the court is a better law making body because it is less partisan. The problem with this argument is that it disregards the rule of law. If a thief stole a mans money, would you let him off on the basis that he used the money better than it's owner would have? No! The supreme court has stolen power, and it is your responsibility judge to uphold the rule of law by returning legislative power to it's rightful owner. Now, if you truly think that the court SHOULD have legislative power, you will need to work toward a constitutional amendment, but for now you must uphold the law we have now. By the way, re election is a check. It does not corrupt. It keeps representatives lined up with the will of the people. In rebuttal 3 my opponent tells you that quotes from the founding fathers telling you how they tried to set this country up don't matter. They matter because the constitution is, or was supposed to be, the supreme law of the land. It is important to see what the authors of our most important legal document intended when they wrote it. It is also important that what they intended and wrote clearly does not line up with what ended up happening. It is important that the father of the constitution was outraged by the court's seizure of power. My opponent's argument to tell you they are not important was to point back to the words these same founders wrote in Article 3. Again, his quote from Article 3 makes my point. The judiciary should have judicial power, while the legislative has legislative power. That is what they wrote, but that is not the way it has remained. Jefferson and Madison make that clear. In rebuttal 4 my opponent once again denies his statement from rebuttal 2 when he said that the court is a better institution for making law because it is non-partisan. He says that he does not want the court "passing law," but he still is not willing to take away ALL legislative power (power over law). Again he contradicts himself when he says the court should strike down "bad" laws. Deciding which laws are "good" is legislative. My opponent now brings up a new argument. He says that the court is checked by impeachment. Let me remind him that impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors." This means that a justice can only be impeached for a criminal offence. It does nothing to check their power. It does nothing to solve my harms. So impeachment will not deter them from bad decisions, it will only deter them from committing crimes. In rebuttal 5 my opponent claims that I twisted his words by saying that he is in favor of living constitutionalism. He then proceeds to defend the mindset he denied the moment before. If you the judge think that the constitution should be updated, it just so happens that the founders created a way to do that. It is called an amendment. The court should have no power to do this updating for us. We have tried that and it means that the court can do literally whatever they want to the constitution. That is unacceptable. It is true that times have changed. In that case, amend the constitution LEGALY. In rebuttal 6 my opponent again says that congress should have all legislative power and that congress should have none, but he forgets once again that legislative power is not only power to make law, but is all power over law. He even admits that in Cooper v. Arron the court seized supreme power over law. Case closed. We all agree that the court has taken power it was not intended to have. He claims that they don't use this power, but if you look at the evidence I have presented especially in the harms of my first speech, you will see that his claim is unfounded. In rebuttal 7 my opponent says we should let the supreme court do illegal things as a protest. Again, this boils down to the rule of law. My opponent admits that his counter plan could be done at the same time, and does not dispute my point about counter plans. Case closed. In rebuttal 9 my opponent clearly says that his evidence pieces were not from as good sources. Whenever we have stated facts that are in conflict, the only way to decide is by the evidence. If you are having trouble deciding a point bases on our logic, I would ask you to look again at the mounds of evidence I have presented to factually back up almost every word out of my mouth. All his quote from Harvard shows is that the court can only examine a law which has been challenged in court. This is obvious and I don't see why it matters. The fact remains that they have the last word on law. In conclusion let me once again explain my plan. In this plan is passed, congress will be able to override a court decision. The override will not effect how the case plays out for the individuals involved. It still allows the court to apply law to cases entirely unchecked. In other words, the plan does not in any way hamper judicial power. On the other hand, it allows congress to completely destroy the effects of a case on the law, that is, the LEGISLATIVE effect of that case. In this way the court will retain all judicial power and congress will once again possess all legislative power as was intended. The fundamental question for you the judge to decide in this round is simply: "Who should rule you?" Who do you want to have the final say in the legislative policy matters that effect your daily life? Should it be the court? Should we be ruled by an unaccountable, life tenured, all powerful judiciary, or would you rather have policy made by elected representatives who you hire, fire and pay as it was intended from the beginning? Please stand with me an defend our democratic republic from becoming a robed oligarchy. Stand with me and defend the rule of law!