Resolved: Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court.

I affirm: Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court.

[Definitions]

Judicial activism: the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs.

[Contentions]

Contention I: Judicial Activism violates the constitution.

Contention II: Judicial Activism is a form of legal subjectivity.

Contention III: Judicial Activism undermines the idea of a Democratic-Republic.

*In the following rounds these contentions will be explained full*

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

"Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court."

"These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation"

Here is an example of good judicial activism, Brown vs. Board of Education. By your definition a judicial activist is anyone who creates or amends legislation. So your saying when the Supreme Court said segregation was illegal, they were misguided. When they said African American school children could attend school with Whites they created a law that had not been previously enforced, therefore becoming judicial activists. I, however, say in this case judicial activism is a satisfactory idea because segregation goes against the constitutional idea that all men are created equal. Therefore judicial activism can be good barring it follows the constitution thus I see no problem with the president selecting a judicial activist for the United States Supreme Court.

I will attack my opponents case then move to crystallize my own.

"Here is an example of good judicial activism, Brown vs. Board of Education. By your definition a judicial activist is anyone who creates or amends legislation. So your saying when the Supreme Court said segregation was illegal, they were misguided. When they said African American school children could attend school with Whites they created a law that had not been previously enforced, therefore becoming judicial activists. I, however, say in this case judicial activism is a satisfactory idea because segregation goes against the constitutional idea that all men are created equal. Therefore judicial activism can be good barring it follows the constitution thus I see no problem with the president selecting a judicial activist for the United States Supreme Court."

My Response: You can drop this whole argument. Why? Simple. Brown vs. Board of Education wasn't an act of judicial activism. The decision in this court case didn't: 1) create a new law, 2) or didn't amend a preexisting. It merely interpreted the clause: all men are created equal. Interpretation of a law doesn't fit the definition of judicial activism. Therefore, you can drop my opponent's argument.
===============================================================================
Moving to my own case:

Contention I: Judicial Activism violates the constitution.

According to the constitution the duties of the three branches are as follows:

A) Legislative: create or amend laws.
B) Executive: Enforce the laws.
C) Judicial: Interpret preexisting laws.

Essentially, judicial activism gives the legislative power to the judicial branch. This violates the Separation of Powers article in the constitution. The judicial branch is over stepping its powers to include that of which is dictated by Congress. Thus, judicial activism violates the constitution.

Contention II: Judicial Activism is a form of legal subjectivity.

One major problem with judicial activism is that it is subjective, based on the current judge presiding. It does not stand for the will of the majority, and power to the people, and is based on the subjective view of a specific judge. Therefore, with multiple judges presiding, laws would contradict majority, and laws would be created without the consent of the governed. Judicial Activism is subjective based on one man, the judge.

Contention III: Judicial Activism undermines the idea of a Democratic-Republic.

Judicial Activism strips away the purpose of a government for, by and of the people. Essentially, judicial activism takes away the power given to them and to the elected officials of Congress. It makes our country into a dictatorship run by the court system. Congress was given the power to make, and amend laws, based on what the people want. Judicial Activism undermines this a lot.

I stand ready for the next round.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

2) or didn't amend a pre existing.

Prior to the ruling African American students and White students could not go to school together. After the Supreme Court's ruling African American students and White students were permitted to go to school together. If this isn't changing a law it do not know what is.

"Prior to the ruling African American students and White students could not go to school together. After the Supreme Court's ruling African American students and White students were permitted to go to school together. If this isn't changing a law it do not know what is."

My Response: The legislative branch agreed and made it a law. The supreme court interpreted, then handed it over to Congress. Therefore, it is not judicial activism. Drop this point.
=================================================================================

Extend all my contentions for the remaining round. It has gone unrefuted by my opponent. Thus, he agrees and stands.

My contentions are my voting issues.

I urge an affirmation.

"The legislative branch agreed and made it a law."

In fact, when the Supreme Court said segregation of schools was unconstitutional black children and white children were permitted to go to school together. Thus changing a law and becoming judicial activists by my opponent's definition. Proving there can be good judicial activists, disproving my opponent's argument. In addition there is no reason for me to respond to the other points he has made seeing as I have already proved him wrong. I will not drop this point since it is my only argument.