Judicial Activism in the United States is unjust.

Before I begin my rebuttal, I want to indicate to the Con that I take a particular liking in the Tango, but we will have to address that after the Debate. ========================================================== First I want to accept the definitions that the Con has given, to insure fair debate I accept the following definitions: Judicial activism - the making of new public policies through the decisions of judges Unjust-Having more harms than benefits My duty throughout this debate is to convey to the public that Judicial Activism inflicts intrinsic harms on the people of our Society. ========================================================== My Case stands untouched by the Con so, Let me break down the Con's First Argument, The Con eloquently talks about how broken the current system of representation and legislation is because Social Reform is incredibly controversial, and also goes on to say that grassroots social reform is achieved faster and better through the Supreme Court. I agree with the Con's Argument that the current system is somewhat broken, but that is not where this debate lies, it lies in whether the Con can prove that Judicial Activism is a better legislator than the Legislative branch of the United States Government. This is simply not true. On July 2, 1964, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in employment practices and public accommodations. The bill authorized the Attorney General to file lawsuits to enforce the new law. The law also nullified state and local laws which required such discrimination. Not only did the Civil Rights Act legally end discrimination in the Status quo, it also took away state and local rights to implement discrimination. There has not been a single issue so controversial in the history of the United States, but the legislation passed and legal bigotry was ended. So the Con's premise that controversial Social Reform cannot happen under a proper and Constitutional basis is false. Another example of the Legislative Branch doing its job is… Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it easier for Southern blacks to register to vote. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other such requirements that were used to restrict black voting are made illegal. http://www.infoplease.com... Again, the Congressmen and women deliver and drive toward a better tomorrow through Social Reform. These are two living and breathing examples of Legislators conducting collective change, therefore the only way my opponent can convince me that Judicial Activism has the power to do even more than the Legislature the Con has to provide his own examples with equally compelling impacts and equally controversial issues. The Con further verbalizes that the Courts can be the vehicle of Social reform. I do not disagree. When dissecting this argument, we have to look to what kind of social reform the Courts are most likely to implement, and the fact that "public opinion" is not best represented by the Courts. First, the infrastructure of the United States Government is set up to achieve a representative democracy, one that properly represents the American people. Social reform through Judicial Activism does not achieve this. Lets look at the Statistics, Ethnicity of Judges White HispanicBlack non-Hispanic 83.2% 4.5% 8.8% http://www.abanet.org... In a world where Judicial Activism was in the forefront of Legislating change in our society, White people would get 83.2% of say in government. Hispanics would get 4.5% and Black people would get 8.8% of say in government. This is unfair because Blacks and Hispanics should be playing a bigger role in Government because they make up a bigger portion of the population. Second, What is public opinion, and How do judges know what public opinion is? Two very good questions. If a person watches MSNBC it says the public opinion is this, when if a person watches FOX it says it is that. Believe it or not but judges watch the News to keep informed and under a Judicial Activism state some judges are going to legislate upon what they feel is the public opinion when in actuality it is not. Congressmen and women are constantly lobbied by their constituency, constantly getting letters from angry unions or angry unemployed Americans. Congressmen and Women know the public opinion of their state because they receive notice directly from the public on what their opinion is. Go Congress!!