The United States judicial system is seriously flawed because of our current Judicial Review.

Pro has opted not to develop a case despite having three opportunities to do so. In the first round he defined the issue and important terms, but did not draw up an argument. In the second round he contented himself with merely rebutting my points without supplying sufficiently reliable sources or support. Finally, in the most recent round he repeated his activity of the second round and just rebutted a few of my points without going into great detail. I submit to the audience that I have already won this debate. Pro did not offer an argument to support his resolution. Neither did he rebut my argument with any success. Furthermore, he conceded that Constitutional Review falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This means that Judicial Review is protected within the U. S. Constitution. Pro argues that the Supreme Court, with the power of Judicial Review, has the potential to be dangerous and oppressive. He offers no evidence; no specific cases; not even any hypothetical cases to support this claim. He claims that the current use of Judicial Review goes much too far from the founders' intention of the Courts power, yet he offers no support for this claim either. Pro claims that it is "quite easy to render a law unconstitutional" by interpreting the Constitution very loosely. He offers no examples and does not explain why it would be "quite easy. " Unfortunately for him, the Judiciary Act of 1789 specifically outlines the limits on Judicial Review. I might also add that Pro omitted this portion of Section 25 of the act when he cited it in Round 3: "But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the before mentioned questions of validity or construction of the said constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities in dispute. " (Source: Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 25: . http://www.constitution.org...) We can assume that a Justice that strays outside of these boundaries is impeachable. Therefore, the anxiety over Justices wielding too much power is unfounded. On the other hand, I offered an argument in the very first round of debate. This argument was accepted by Pro on both theoretical and practicable grounds. The only rebuttal he provided was to say that the current form of Judicial Review is different and more powerful than the original. However, as I just mentioned, he offers no demonstrable or hypothetical evidence to support this position. I have provided both. ========= CONCLUSION Because Pro failed to offer a case to support his resolution; and because he failed to provide sufficient evidence in the form of specific cases or hypothetical ones, and he failed to utilize the plethora of available and relevant sources to support his scattered rebuttals; and because he accepted the bulk of my argument without question, and his responses were insufficient to negate my position; then the resolution, that the United States' Judicial System is seriously flawed because of its current use of Judicial Review, stands negated.