Legislative override of SCOTUS

Wow. My opponent admits that the supreme court has determined its own powers, not the constitution! Do I really need to say any more to prove there is a problem?? Then you say that it would be terrible if we take away the power that they claimed for themselves, and gave it back to the legislators, who should have had it in the first place! Really? My opponent argues that to justify a shift in the balance of power, I must prove that the balance is off. In other words, that the court legislates in the status quo. Sadly, they have begun to decide cases based on whether they think the outcome would be better. As even you said, it is used to stop congress from passing "bad" laws. You are admitting that the court makes decisions based on policy preferences. The only body who should do that is congress. Now I would like to present even more evidence besides what I have brought up already ( not to mention your own words) to show that the court uses unlawful legislative power. Dr. Rick Scarborough, Vision America, April 8, 2005: "When prayer was removed from the public schools, was it by a vote of the American people? When it became legal for a woman to kill her own baby, was it by a vote of the American people? When the Ten Commandments were stricken from public places, was it by a vote of the American people? No, a handful of judges imposed their own personal agendas upon the nation, with no constitutional authority whatsoever. The judges simply ignored the people and persisted in their unabashed determination to change America." Because this is an important point, here is another piece. Attorney William Stanmeyer, in A Blueprint for Judicial Reform: "The litany of important policy decisions that unelected, life-tenured federal judges have taken out of the hands of elected representatives and transferred to themselves is too long to detail. the Supreme Court has substituted its notions of good policy for those of state legislatures or the U.S. Congress in such nuanced, complicated, and important areas as: apportioning legislatures, using the death penalty, regulating abortion, decriminalizing most forms of pornography, outlawing prayer in public schools, and protecting the nation"s internal security. These and many other policy decisions have effectively made judges the rulers of society. contrary to the tenets of the American Revolution, an "imperial judiciary" provides legislation without representation." I think that will suffice to prove that the court does, indeed use legislative power to decide policy issues. Article 1, section 1 of the constitution states that "All legislative power" is granted to congress. Yes, the balance of power is off and needs fixing. I would like to quickly state that the constitution does "change with the times," but it should only change when it's words are changed by the amendment process. The court should not be able to change the meaning of clear words at their whim. In the words of the late justice Scalia "It's a legal document for Pete's sake!" In rebuttal 2 my opponent contradicts what he said in rebuttal 1. Before he said that the court has no legislative power at all. Now he is saying that they have, and ought to have, ULTIMATE legislative power. He says that they should have the last word in order to stop congress from passing "bad" laws. That sounds legislative to me. My opponent quoted, but did not refute my example of RFRA proving that the court has the last word and cannot be overturned by congress. In addition let me remind you of Cooper V. Arron which I brought up in my first speech. In that case, the court decided that their decisions have the same force as the constitution. That case refutes both rebuttal 1 and 2. In that case, they gave themselves supreme legislative power with no effective way to stop them. As far as his argument that the states can get around a court decision, I would like to argue that solving illegality by doing something illegal is no solution at all! Also, his one example of this "solution" working has now failed. Roy Moore who is the state supreme court justice leading the fight against the courts unconstitutional ruling has now been fired. Congress has little recourse and the states have none. On to rebuttal 3. My opponent argues that the court is better at making policy that congress, so we should hand over legislative power to congress. Again he is arguing against his earlier claims! Before he said they have no legislative power, than when it helped him he said they do, now he says they should. He can't have it all those ways. He argues that the court will make better laws than congress. I would like to argue that who would make better law is beside the point. The point is, who's job is it to make law? The constitution clearly gives ALL legislative power to congress. I don't care if the court would use it better! The power rightfully belongs to congress, and it must be returned to them. By the way, if you don't like what your congressman does, boot him out. If you don't like what a justice does... deal with it. Now on to the counter plan. Let me explain to you how counter plans work. They must solve the harms presented by pro, but be mutually exclusive. If my opponent would like to argue about term limits some other time, great! (although, I am not entirely against them myself) According to some experts, my plan and his work together! My opponent even admits that they could both be done. That should be the end of this argument. As far as clarifying your plan, could this accountability Office remove people from their positions? Now let's look at rebuttal 5. Yes, congress is polar, that is their job! They are sent to congress to represent the interests of their constituents. Working for re election is not corrupt! It is the way you exercise power over them! No. This plan does not strike a blow at the power of the court. It puts them back where the founders wanted them. If you really still think that the court does not have too much power, there is always more evidence, and since I have time, here we go. Lets hear from some more experts, and if you come out of this still thinking there is no problem, vote con right now. William J. Federer, founder of the Manhattan Declaration, a political action group focused on religious liberty issues, in "Judicial Tyranny," 2005: "Students are taught that America is a democracy. Historians clarify it as a Constitutional Republic. But America is neither. It has become an oligarchy --- a rule by a few unelected federal judges." Mark Levin, in The Liberty Amendments: The judiciary behaves "as a perpetual constitutional convention " without the benefit of representation and input from the states " rewriting the Constitution as a relative handful of judges divine the merits of this or that issue, nearly always promoting the centralization and concentration of power in the federal government. Of course, the constitutional structure and amendment processes are thereby eviscerated." Elizabeth Slattery, Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, June 13, 2013: "Judicial activism can take a number of different forms. These include importing foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution, elevating policy considerations above the requirements of law, discovering new "rights" not found in the text, and bending the text of the Constitution or a law to comport with the judge"s own sensibilities, When judges impose their own views instead of attempting to determine the original public meaning of a statute or constitutional provision, the Framers" vision of our republican democracy"a government of laws and not of men"is compromised." Law professor Michael Paulsen, in the Notre Dame Law Review, December 7, 2006: "The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, is a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. " Constitutional attorney and national legal columnist Don Feder, in 2005: "We must combat an entrenched mindset. Most Americans have come to honestly believe that judges are magicians and the Constitution (federal or state) is a magic hat from which these hyper-active Houdinis are allowed to pull the most grotesque and deformed mutant rabbits, which all are expected to venerate." And finally James Dobson, founder of the conservative think tank Family Research Council: "Marbury v. Madison allowed the justices to rule on the Constitutionality of every legal issue, both inside and outside the government, giving themselves unrivaled imperial power. The concept of "checks and balances" that was intended to keep one branch from eclipsing the other two was no longer in force " at least not in regard to the judiciary. Thereafter, the will of millions of American people have been subservient to the rulings of five imperious justices, with numerous lower court judges, who issue their decrees beyond the reach of any authority." If the opinions of all the legal experts I have time for is not enough for you, I don't know what will be. These experts clearly contradicted almost everything my opponent has said. Between logic and evidence, the round has been brought to a simple question: Who should rule you? Who should have the ultimate power over the policy decisions that effect you every day? unaccountable, all powerful judges, or the legislators that you hire, fire and pay? The body clearly intended by the framers to have "all legislative power." Please stand with me and return legislative power to legislative bodies!