Judicial Activism in the United States is unjust.

I'm only sad that we couldn't dance a few more sets. ========================================================== 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. ========================================================== I will first bring back my first point from the first round. My first point is that a judge's interpretation of the law disregards the Constitution, which has been carefully modified to represent the interests of the people of the United States. Even if a judge's ruling improves those rights in some small regard, that level of power in the courts is too much. The Con uses two sources to claim that judicial activism actually helps Constitutional law, but both sources are also ammo for the Pro's arguments. The first source has some lines saying, "Each of these rulings defined and extended the right to welfare[. .. ] They uncovered rights implicit in the law and the constitution which had not previously been recognized. " Although the Con's source makes judicial activism sound pretty professional, one should note that this quote proves the danger in judicial activism. Without informed debate about the implications of extending the right to welfare, the Supreme Court broadened it. Although the Con (and especially the second source) would have you think that the courts carefully analyze proceedings, rarely do the prosecutor or defense attorney make a speech saying "By the way, if you rule this way, you will be broadening this right and causing the government to have to pay more money for this or change its policies to match this. " In all of these cases (as is the case for Brown v. Board of Education), the evidence presented is only for one case, one incident of trouble. The result of judicial activism is that instead of simply correcting the single error, the Supreme Court will take this one incident and use it to make a NATIONAL statement. This ability to make a small issue BIG is what makes judicial activism dangerous. Only Congress uses a legislating ability in support of the Constitution, because it will carefully discuss issues before making such a huge change. The Con is arguing that the Supreme Court has corrected some wrongs in the past with judicial activism. This is simply not important. These issues did not require the huge leap of judicial activism. These wounds should have had a small redressing under a normal court case fixing damages, and then Congress should have prevailed with definitive action. As the Con's second source says, "It cannot break down the barriers to communication between administrative jurisdictions, nor within the bureaucratic hierarchy. " The only effect on government that judicial activism has is expanding the Judicial Branch's power to something far too dangerous to democracy. When new "laws" are flung out by the Supreme Court, the checks and balances can lead to something too threatening to allow. ========================================================== Next, the Con shows some court cases to prove that the Supreme Court acted first on social issues. However, his words are actually a disadvantage to his arguments. The Supreme Court made two rulings in 1948 and 1954, and yet segregation would continue for 10 more years? This proves the ineffectiveness of judicial activism. If these rulings were as good as the Con would have you believe, then Martin Luther King, Jr. would have had no need for this March on Washington and "I have a Dream" speech in 1963. Only the Voting Acts of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought truly strong efforts to cancel the negative effects of discrimination. Therefore, Congress should be preferred as the dominant legislating group. Second, I will extend an argument from the last round. I said that the law system does not represent all races equally. 83.2% of those associated with the law system have been white, 4.5% have been Hispanic, and 8.8% have been Black non-Hispanic. Someone's background is inextricably linked to their beliefs and values. Though the Supreme Court justices may claim that they rule only on principle, they are still using their backgrounds in their decisions. Therefore, with a Supreme Court that can interpret one incident to broadcast a new national policy, the amount of value that a justice puts in the ruling can change whether or not they change the nation. These values need to be carefully checked with a more representative system, or democracy will be crushed. This is the final scoreboard: both Congress and the Supreme Court have enacted important social reform in the past. The differences are that the Supreme Court made a dangerous leap across democracy in ruling and that the Supreme Court's rulings had little effect. Also, the Supreme Court relied on one example and on mostly white values to rule, while Congress debated many different situations until they could justifiably pass a law. The preservation of democracy is the most important harm in this round. Well danced, Con. Go Congress! ! !