The US supreme court should not exist in the way it does now

"Con didn't speak formally enough in her last round, and was very sarcastic. That was the problem."Speaking formally has no effect on conduct points. Sarcasm can be illustrative, and that's how I used it.Also...his last round."If American citizens do not like a certain representative because they disagree with them, they can choose another. That's a democracy: Citizens choosing government."You completely missed the point. Your proposed reformation of the Supreme Court only made sense if you assumed that Congress accurately represents the will of the people, and those statistics clearly show that Congress fails to do so. I even gave you reasons why that is."The resolution was not that we need to get rid of the supreme court, but rather reform it."And your proposed reformation would be disastrous. The entire job of the Suprme Court in hearing cases is in deciding how Constitutional laws apply to the specific cases involved in the hearings. You propose that Congress ought to do that. I am telling you that not only would that destroy separation of powers, but it is also logistically impossible.Even beyond that, you don't seem to realize that this reformation would actually get rid of the Supreme Court. Literally the entire job of the Court is to decide how the Constitution applies to specific cases that are appealled to the Court. I'm not sure how you think giving the entire job of the Supreme Court to another branch of government will somehow not get rid of the Supreme Court. "The Supreme Court still doesn't know for sure what laws mean. The 14th Amendment as not created for gay marriage. We should have created a new amendment to legalize it." And the First Amendment wasn't created for picket protests, but it's fairly clear that it applies there. Whether or not the original creators of the amendment knew exactly how it would be applied is irrelevant. What is relevant is the logical and legal implications of a law. Laws are not riddles. Those with a proper legal background know these implications, and the Supreme Court Justices are the best of the best at this."sub point C never existed" Yes it did. I can even quote myself on this from round two:"Thirdly, the cases that my opponent mentions as being evidence for being unrelated to the Constitution make it clear that my opponent has not actually read the rulings for these cases. Both of them have support from the Due Process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution.Roe v Wade:"In Roe, this Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects, under certain circumstances, a woman’s decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term." [2]Obergell v Hodges:"The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex...The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." [3]Claiming that these cases have nothing to do with the Consitution is absurd."I am a bit insulted that you claim this never existed. It implies you did not read it."subpoint D has little proof"I have a citation as support for this. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, my citation is the only guiding light we have. You never provided a single source for anything throughout the debate.Here is that citation again:[4]http://tinyurl.com..."I adressed subpoint G"First of all, I never said you didn't respond to that one. Secondly, your proposal would not really have much of an impact. Congress is so polarized at the moment that even getting sixty percent support for an issue is hard.[13] Thirdly, sapping power from the Executive branch when you're already proposing giving Legislative and Judicial powers to one branch is a recipe for oligarchy."sub point H I also adressed (they will be able to decide on any decision that is in the public eye for long enough)."That does not address the point at all. Even if most issues get raised at some point, the judges still aren't imposing any laws. They're simply stating how the Constitution applies to this particular case.Looking back at my debate, it is quite obvious that my opponent failed to do basic research. Many times they made statements which were blatantly false to begin with. Here are some of them:"the laws it declares unconstitutional have nothing to do with the constitution. For example, the rulings on gay marriage and abortion."This is wrong because those rulings were based on the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment."The fact that justices serve life terms is a problem BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO REMOVE THEM."This is wrong because judges can be impeached."We see that, in the last two hundred years of American history, almost every major political debate that ended was ended by the supreme court."This is wrong because all foreign policay and economics issues have nothing to do with the Supreme Court, and in addition the end of the debates on slavery, franchisment, and women's suffrage were handled by Congress and not the Supreme Court.Further, my opponent failed to provide a single source for anything they said.In summary, my opponent's critique of the Supreme Court is ill-informed, impractical, and unsubstantial. Vote Con.[13]http://tinyurl.com...