Judicial Activism in the United States is unjust.

Hmm, so it comes down to this. Well danced indeed. == The Pro's Last Stand== The Pro's first point is about the apparent "slippery slope" of judicial activism. The Pro's second point is about the bias in the Supreme Court and how it would color activist rulings. -To answer both of these, the Con will bring up its words from the last Round. "[...] This would only affect a small percentage of law (the Supreme Court doesn't argue with Congress on absolutely everything it says). Therefore, the majority of legislating will still occur in Congress [...]" The Con understands that the Pro's harm of bias and undemocratic danger is a lil too well defended for the Con to argue it doesn't exist at all; but for the Con to prove that judicial activism is just, the Con only has to prove that the benefits of judicial activism outweigh this harm. Therefore, the Con will argue with the above quote from Round 2 that any problems the Pro is describing only affect a minor percentage of laws that were altered by a Supreme Court ruling. After all, it's not every year that the Supreme Court even makes more than one ruling. Only after a hundred such rulings would the checks and balances of democracy be in danger of tipping, and only after several rulings would "white values" start to skew a part of the law. == The Con, from the hip== First, the Con will bring back from last Round its arguments about how judicial activism is good for democracy. -The first source was about how judicial activism uncovers rights in the Constitution that had not previously been recognized. However, the Pro has made some extensive rebuttals on this, so the Con will instead focus on the next source. -The second source was about how the courtroom setting takes the enormous letter of the law and presents it in a context for the public to understand. This is offense against the Pro's two points; a public that's informed in court will take their knowledge and fight in Congress. They will also keep any offensive or threatening opinions in the government (i.e. in the Supreme Court) in check. Any danger of a Supreme Court abusing its powers has a safety check because citizens will backlash and vote to keep democracy safe. The Pro made an argument saying that the Supreme Court rulings in 1948 and 1954 had little effect. The Con is going to red-flag this for the attention of all the voters. A large part of your vote is probably going to come down to this question; did the Supreme Court rulings make early decisions to inspire political movements like MLK's to change Congress and the law(as the Con argues)? Or did the Supreme Court rulings ultimately have no effect and did civil rights wait until Congress's independent actions to have victory (as the Pro argues)? If the first is true, then the Con's arguments that the Supreme Court inspires further political movements is true. This means that the judicial activism fosters direct democracy among the people. This also means that the Supreme Court is the vehicle for controversial change, even used by Congress to pass important and necessary legislation in a way possible for Congresspeople whose jobs can be so easily lost by controversy. Even if the second is true, and the Supreme Court turns out to not be effective for social change, judicial activism still has the benefit of taking the Constitution and displaying it in a context understandable by the public. This means that the Pro's only harm disappears, because the safety check still exists, and an informed public will fight against bias and too much government power, not only in the Supreme Court itself but in other parts of the government. Therefore, no harm, and benefit of fighting corruption in other branches. == The Showdown== Therefore, the Con argues that any risks to democracy and to bias are minimal, as judicial activism doesn't happen that frequently. However, judicial activism increases direct democracy and enacts necessary change when it's needed. Judicial activism also keeps the public informed so that they can actively fight bias, further minimizing any harms. If you the voter, believe that these benefits outweigh the harms, then judicial activism is just, and you should vote Con. And once more, if you don't buy the majority of the Con's arguments, the safety check argument means that the Con should still come out with no harms and at least a slight benefit. Jazz hands and curtains...