Josh Zive says,

"Terry demonstrates the problem with using holding. Holding makes things totally bidirectional.

Terry decided that stops and frisks were OK. They held the stops were OK as long as they followed a set of restrictions (time of stop, intrusiveness, etc.).

If you overrule the decision you arguably have to ban all Terry stops. If you allow overrule of holdings it is possible that folks can strike down some of the limits on Terry stops and actually expand police power."
 

What is the net benefit to the "do the plan but don't overrule X" CP? Stare decisis???? Is there an impact to this? If there is a net benefit, are there going to be any Affs that don't succumb to this strategy????
 

The assumption is that the plan is something unrelated to the aff. The plan is overrule Casey and legalize gay marriage. Their is ample NB ground in this example.
 

What is the net benefit? The plan doesn't, by itself, change abortion law. It just overrules the test that was applied in Casey.

And, for the record, I'm no genius. Do you guys really want to debate against the Affs Dallas will come up with for Harvard??
 

paul - i agree, but i think they are set on "overrule" in the resolution since that is what the community voted for as a topic.
 

i agree with paul. someone at the TC meeting should bring this up.
 

how about 1 resolution without "overrule"???
 

This is insane.

Either the Aff will never win because the "do plan but distinguish, don't overturn" CP is a viable option or the Aff will be able to do anything at all because it doesn't have to say "overturn" in the plan.

Have you come up with a single Aff that could respond to the "do plan but don't overrule" CP???? I would have said maybe Korematsu and Bowers, but those aren't on the topic.