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.
 

There are plenty of cards saying stare decisis good, or saying that overrules undermine the court's legitimacy. I readily concede that these net benefits are weak.
But when the CP solves the whole case, you don't need much.

Combine this danger with the fact that putting "overrule" into the resolution does not make the topic any smaller, why give the negative this potentially devastating weapon, that will avoid debates on the legal issues?
 

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.
 

If you're no genius, I am not sure what that makes me.

I'll just go back to making wallets that I can sell to support my family.
 

In my opinion, the community did not vote to create a topic that requires an artificial mechanism like overrule.

The community wanted to debate a COURTS topic, meaning a legal topic with the Court as an agent.

I understand others disagree. But do those that believe this really think there is going to be a community backlash when they get legal topics with the Court as an agent but without "overrule" in the resolution? I just think that is illogical. They voted for Courts, and that is what the TC can give without using this foolish overrule mechanism that hamstrings the aff.
 

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

how about 1 resolution without "overrule"???
 

Paul:

How do you explain why your fears about overrule in this context did not manifest themselves during the privacy topic.

Theoretically, this deadly neg strat would have worked then--it didn't. Is there something since 92 that makes this a more viable strategy.
 

That is a good point Josh.

I think a couple things are different:

a) Plan inclusive cp's are way more widespread and accepted now than they were then. The change, I think, happened around the Commander-in-Chief topic.

b) Cases like Bowers and Roe actually had great cards (for symbolism, etc) that those decisions needed to be overruled.

c) I don't have a (c) other than to say in 2006-07 this CP strategy is going to win lots of debates.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But this would be my default generic negative strategy, no question about it.
 

Fair points Skeeter.

I find your sub(c) especially compelling.
 

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.