Thoughts for Topic Committee I listened to a good portion of the topic committee meeting today while trying to get other work done, but I'm taking off for the night. Let me say at the outset how impressive today's discussion has been - an outside observer would easily conclude that you all had graduated from law school. You have all obviously done a ton of work. I hope you receive immense gratitude from the community for your efforts.

Before I take off, I figured I would send my thoughts on what I anticipate will be the next big discussion for you all -- how to frame the resolution.

In our blog discussions, I see 4 major types of resolutions we have blogged about so far: list of areas, list of cases, and list of areas/cases with directional limiting phrases. I list them from broadest to narrowest.

#1 - Areas - The USSC should overrule one of its decisions in one of the following areas: abortion, affirmative action, etc.

#2 - Areas with Directional Limits - The USSC should overrule one of its decisions in one of the following areas: abortion (in order to increase access to abortion), affirmative action (in order to increase the availability of affirmative action) etc.

#3 - Cases - The USSC should overrule one of the following: Casey, Grutter, etc.

#4 - Cases with Directional Limits - The USSC should overrule one of the following: Casey (to increase access to abortion), Grutter (to increase the availability of affirmative action), etc.

If I were debating, I would probably prefer #2 - it provides the Aff with flexibility in terms of the number of cases to choose from, but provides the Neg with predictable advantage ground (by specifying the direction/goal of the Sup Ct decision) and predictable generic ground (by requiring the Aff to do the action of overruling).

You have an extremely tough job. Good luck! 

posted by Lindsay at 5/31/2006 06:23:00 PM ¶