Legislative override of SCOTUS

Rebuttal 1: Constitution Up until this point, my opponent has been citing the tenth amendment as one point. However, let us realize that the constitution has already established the power of the supreme court. In fact, if we were to turn toward Cornell University, we could see the following as taken from the constitution: “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.” https://www.law.cornell.edu... This shows the fact that what the Supreme Court does is not unconstitutional. The power of the Supreme Court is outline here stating that it does in fact have the power to ordain and establish law like congress if necessary. Since we are going against this constitutional Article, we need to have an amendment, not a bill as my opponent has proffered. Not only this, but one of the main arguments of my opponent involves the Supreme Court ignoring the constitution. Well, by enacting today’s plan, we are doing the same thing. So, under your logic of unconstitutionality, the argument fails. Not only this, but as I have stated before, Marbury v. Madison has already established this as well. What this shows is that the Supreme Court is acting within its jurisdiction as of now. Rebuttal 2: Legislative power My opponent has asserted that the Supreme Court now has legislative power to make law. This, as stated before, is untrue. If we were to look toward the rulings of any Supreme Court case, we would realize that every case was determined by constitutionality and not the harms on the American people. While I will concede that there are party lines that play into effect here, I have already shown why the Supreme Court is by far the least polar and politically inclined by showing you the fact that despite a conservative majority, an inherently liberal idea was passed, which was to legalize homosexual marriage. This is important given the fact that every other branch of government relies on some sort of agenda to change the lives of Americans through lobbyists for Congress and donors for the executive branch. There is limited, if any lobbying in the Supreme Court. Also, the influence reelection makes in the Supreme Court is also null since the justices are elected for life. Rebuttal 3: Quotes from Madison My job here is to show you why the founding fathers quotes do not mean as much in the status quo. It can be easily seen through the fact that regardless of what has been said, the third Article of the constitution is clear in telling us the power of the Supreme Court in regards to decisions making. Rebuttal 4: Change law I have never stated that the Supreme Court should be passing law or have any influence on the legislative process. What I am claiming is that the power to interpret the law should be in the hands of the Supreme Court which should be necessary to understand. However, if a law is unconstitutional, by all means, it cannot exist as it violates the very government system set up. It is also the judicial branch’s job to keep Congress in check when bad law is passed. The Supreme Court is checked through possible impeachment. If what my opponent stated is true about the possibility of a Supreme Court decision being overturned makes the likeliness of bad decisions go down, it should go without saying that staying in a job also deters the justices from making, what they might consider, bad decisions. Rebuttal 5: Living constitutionalism My opponent has seemed to twist my words up. No, I am not in favor of having the constitution completely changed. I am simply saying that the constitution is outdated by todays’ standards and has to be reapplied by method of Supreme Court judge. How is the constitution outdated? Well, consider the time period when first used. There were things such as “slaves” and “muskets.” What we see in the status quo is that when the 3/5th amendment and second amendment were first introduced, the time period was different and could not account for the future changes in the world. Ergo, the constitution means something different from its origins because it applies to modern day. Not only this, but my opponent has also proven this as well through his opinions on Supreme Court decisions as his opinion on certain Supreme Court decisions differs from the original judges. What this shows is that with different opinions comes different understandings of the constitution, which leads us to modern day where we apply the second amendment to mean the right of man to own a gun, when in the past it meant a standing militia with muskets. Originalism fails in the basic concept that it is impossible to understand what the founding fathers wanted. This is because the original intents are still up for debate as we don’t know how the founding fathers would have reacted given the premises of today with homosexual marriage and the lies. It is important to remember that the founding fathers are not gods, and their opinions may not translate well into today. Some of them even owned slaves, which definitely does not apply to today. Rebuttal 6: Ultimate legislative power Wrong, I never said that the Supreme Court should have legislative power, only judicial power. What is meant by this is that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution and applies that to unconstitutional laws. Yes, Cooper v. Arron does establish a right to rule. However, in the status quo we do not see this. The legislative branch arguably has more powers since it makes more decisions that directly change lives at a faster rate through laws and decisions about policy. Rebuttal 7: Illegality The point of this argument was to show that in the status quo, the Supreme Court does not have the supreme power that it pretends to have. If anything, what needs to happen is that we look at the illegal actions as a type of peaceful protest which will cause the Supreme Court to act in a certain way to fix the problems presented. Rebuttal 8: Counter plan While we could adopt this and your plan at the same time, allow me to explain why this would be bad. First, we would see that we would be balancing the power away from the Supreme Court as my counter plan targets all branches of government and government officials while my opponent’s plan simply targets the Supreme Court. This would lead to balance being taken away Supreme Court especially given the life long term that judges are used to spending. Rebuttal 9: Opinions No, the point behind this argument is to show the fact that legal experts are not statistics that are certain. I have already supplied a constitutional point and a Supreme Court case where plenty of people shared an opinion about the Supreme Court’s job, which shows at least some legal expert, a Supreme Court judge, agrees with me. I did not mean to imply that expert opinions mean nothing, nor was I implying that justice’s opinions should be considered higher than a legal expert’s. However, keep in mind that opinions are never certain. However, while I am on the topic of expert legal opinions, let us keep something in mind as stated from the Harvard Review: “In accord with that doctrine, the federal courts refuse to advise other government actors or private individuals on abstract legal questions; instead, they provide their views only in the course of deciding live cases or controversies. This means that the Supreme Court will not consider whether potential legislative or executive action violates the Constitution when such action is proposed or even when it is carried out, but only when it is challenged by an adversary party in a case meeting various doctrinal requirements.” http://harvardlawreview.org... With this we see the complete opposite; that the Supreme Court only looks toward cases that involve constitutional doctrine. Rebuttal 10: Previous conclusion My opponent has stated that what I have been saying is not true in the conclusion. My opponent gives opinions of legal experts and does put words in my mouth, such as stating that I want the Supreme Court to have ultimate legislative power, which I never directly stated. I asked for judicial power. I have asked for checks through my counter plan to get rid of the life-long job as a Supreme Court judge, and my opponent’s points lead to the fact that the constitution is a living document as it shows that he as an opinion as well as many others that dissent with others on Supreme Court cases. What I am ultimately saying is the fact that the second amendment is up for debate, that in your opinion the judicial branch has overstated its bounds, leads me to believe that the constitution means different things for different people. In conclusion, the obvious answer is a negative ballot.