DA -- Court Packing

1NC
 1NC -- DA
Court packing is restrained now because of conservative reticence -- an inflamed GOP
greenlights the Calabresi-Hirji proposal which permanently destroys American
constitutionalism.
Rosenberg ’17 [Paul; December 3; Columnist, citing political analysts; Salon, “GOP's court-packing
spree: It's only the beginning,” https://www.salon.com/2017/12/03/gops-court-packing-spree-its-only-
the-beginning/; RP]

But ifone leading conservative judicial activist gets his way, that will only be the beginning. Federalist
Society founder and board chair Steven Calabresi has written a memo (along with recent graduate Shams Hirji) calling on
congressional Republicans to massively expand the lower federal courts, a court-packing scheme of
breathtaking proportions for the express purpose of “undoing the judicial legacy of President Barack Obama.”
This would actually giving Trump the power to appoint far more judges than any president in recent history
— and do it before the 2018 midterms. How many judges, exactly? Calabresi has his eye on three distinct categories. First, he’d like to
double or perhaps triple the number of appeals court (i.e., circuit court) judges, who are second only in power to the
Supreme Court. Trump could then appoint at least as many appeals court judges as all other presidents
combined. Second, he wants to add 185 trial (district court) judgeships, which would bring Trump’s
appointments to 40 percent of the total. Third, he’d like to replace 158 nonpartisan, agency-appointed
administrative law judges (ALJs) with Trump-appointed judges with lifetime tenure. These come from 20 different
executive branch regulatory agencies —the EPA, FCC, SEC, etc. — but almost half come from just two: the Department of Labor (41) and the
National Labor Relations Board (34), both of which look out for the rights of workers, whom Trump has a long history of exploiting. Allowing
this president to appoint these judges would be a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse . Calabresi
realizes he’s asking for a lot, so he also presents a more modest fallback position. Even that one would allow Trump to
exceed Obama’s influence in just one-fourth the time in office. Lest you think he’s going soft, Calabresi has also proposed
that Republicans pass his proposal as part of the GOP tax plan — something that still could happen through the conference process. Needless to
say, the plan has drawn some sharp criticism, including high-profile pieces by Ronald Klain at the Washington Post and
Linda Greenhouse at the New York Times, who carefully picks apart the claims of a judicial emergency (which Republicans, of
course, ignored when Obama was in office). Calabresi and Hirji fired back in a National Review article, claiming: “Nothing could be further from
the truth” than to call it a court-packing plan. “In fact, it is a court-unpacking plan.” The Democrats started it, you see. They’re the real court-
packers. Even some fellow conservatives aren’t buying this plan or its rationale. "As a member of the
Federalist Society who often speaks at its events, I can write in complete candor that this
proposal is ill-considered and
should be discarded," Josh Blackman wrote at the National Review. Libertarian Ilya Somin wrote at the Post's Volokh Conspiracy blog
that Calabresi and Hirji "clearly state that one of their goals is 'undoing President Barack Obama’s Judicial Legacy.' Thus, it is not unfair to
conclude that court-packing is a major objective of their proposal, even if it is not the only one.” But perhaps the best way to understand the
plan is through the eyes of Richard Primus, of the University of Michigan Law School, who wrote a recent post at the Harvard Law Review blog
titled “Rulebooks, Playgrounds, and Endgames: A Constitutional Analysis of the Calabresi-Hirji Judgeship Proposal.” At least the
proposal is
honest, he writes. “The paper’s motivation is entirely out in the open. This is a proposal to expand the federal
judiciary for the purpose of putting people with certain judicial ideologies in control. It comes as a wolf.” He
seeks to elucidate both why and how this is so profoundly dangerous to America’s constitutional system. Primus'
terminology is important: "Rulebooks" and "playgrounds" refer to different ways of understanding the Constitution. The "endgame"
here, he writes, suggests "a kind of constitutional Armageddon." This proposal means "to end an era,” but not
necessarily in the way that Calabresi and Hirji suppose. “The document is remarkable in at least two respects,” Primus begins. “First, it
showcases the difference between legislation that Congress has the formal authority to enact and legislation that is compatible with the small-c
constitution. If Congress were to enact the Calabresi-Hirji proposal, it would be hard to articulate a rationale on which the courts could strike
the resulting law down as unconstitutional. But it is also clear that the
proposal threatens the permanent unraveling of a
settlement that has made legitimate judicial review possible for a century and a half.” The relationship
between the formal big-C Constitution and the informal small-c constitution is crucial, Primus notes: “The big-C
Constitution does its work only because the small-c constitution creates conditions in which that work is
possible.” There are two ways of understanding the Constitution, Primus says at the end of his analysis. One is as a rulebook: “As long as
you stay within the permitted moves, you’re playing the game properly.” In this view, there is no little-c constitution at all. “But the rulebook
approach is a dangerously inadequate way to think about constitutional law,” he warns. “A more helpful analogy might go like this:
Constitutional government is like playground basketball. If you care too much about winning this round
and not enough about respecting your rival in the spirit of the game, pretty soon there might not be a game at all.” As
he sees it, that is the danger the Calabresi-Hirji proposal holds. However “conservative” they might claim to be, these legal activists are
actually lighting a fuse that could blow up the whole constitutional system. The reason they might do that brings us
to the second remarkable thing Primus notes:

Expanded liberal rulings motivate conservative hardball by portraying the judiciary as

broadly hostile and capable of endangering right-wing values.
Rosenberg ’17 [Paul; December 3; Columnist, citing political analysts; Salon, “GOP's court-packing
spree: It's only the beginning,” https://www.salon.com/2017/12/03/gops-court-packing-spree-its-only-
the-beginning/; RP]

“It does seem to be true that the American right is more comfortable playing hardball than the left,” Hopkins told
Salon. “One reason, I think, is that there is a greater sense of urgency on the right. Many conservatives are
frustrated with their lack of progress over the years in rolling back the modern domestic state, while the
leftward drift of American culture further contributes to their disaffection and alienation. If existing norms of governance have helped
lead us to this current state of affairs, they reason, then perhaps these norms do not deserve much deference.” There’s also an inhibition
working on the other side. “It’s also thecase that the center-left in America tends to have a lot of philosophical
investment in the practice of procedural ‘fairness,’ which often makes it uncomfortable with aggressive
displays of political power even on its own behalf,” Hopkins said. Indeed, ever since the 1950s, there have been comments
about how liberals have become de facto conservatives, protectors of the established order. “Finally, I think it’s clear that conservatives
prioritize representation in the judicial branch much more than liberals do at this period in history," Hopkins concluded.
"Control of the court system, up to and including the Supreme Court, simply matters more these days to conservatives,
who view the federal judiciary as broadly hostile to their beliefs and capable of threatening their
political values and power via adverse rulings.” Corey Robin, author of "The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism From Edmund
Burke to Donald Trump" (Salon review here), took a longer view. “At moments of realignment, for example, American liberalism wasn't thinking
in terms of iterative games or Burkeanism,” he said. “It saw itself, and rightly so, as transforming the rules of the game, of permanently altering
the terms of discussion. And it saw itself as being the gravediggers of a pathological formation that would never return: the slaveocracy, in the
case of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans, and the Gilded Age oligarchy, in the case of the New Deal.” In this larger historical framework, both
sides have been equally capable of playing constitutional hardball, as Tushnet argues. “Conversely, what I see in this current proposal from the
conservatives is less a feature of permanent conservative thinking — though I can see why you would say that, what with references to ‘the last
round’ — than a sign of conservative weakness,” Robin said. “I think conservatives see themselves in a race against time:
counterintuitively, and in contrast to [Primus], I think they anticipate that their hold on political power is slipping ... and
they see the judiciary as a way of locking in their gains long past the expiration date.” This is certainly in keeping
with their wide-ranging voter-suppression efforts, along with the ambitious $30 million gerrymandering scheme described by former Salon
editor David Daley in "Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy." “Their
model here is the
Gilded Age judiciary, which was able to hold the line against growing populist and legislative attacks on
economic wealth and power,” Robin said. “So it is a last round, and it is a fight to the finish, but it's a fight they
except to lose in every respect save one: their lock on the judiciary. History suggests that is not an irrational
way of thinking about their current predicament, insofar as the Lochner-era Supreme Court [from about 1897 to 1937] and lower
courts really did strike down progressive legislation for decades.”
That tubes effective climate litigation -- packing blocks regulatory relief AND reverses
limitations on emissions.
Bravender and Waldman ’17 [Robin and Scott; November 27; Deputy Editor of Climate Wire, citing
the head of the Judging the Environment Project and Richard Lazarus, an environmental law expert and
Professor of Law at Harvard University; Award-winning reporter, M.A. in Journalism from Syracuse
University; Scientific American, “Trump Races to Pick Judges Who Oversee Environment Cases,”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-races-to-pick-judges-who-oversee-environment-
cases/; RP]

President Trump has dismissed global warming as a hoax, snubbed the Paris emissions pact and scrapped
U.S. EPA climate rules. But executive actions can be fleeting—as the Trump administration has shown by moving
swiftly to unravel many of President Obama's climate change policies. Yet there's a major piece of Trump's climate
legacy that could be more enduring: his court picks. The Trump administration has acted expeditiously to fill
vacancies on top courts around the country, including the Supreme Court and powerful lower courts that could
decide the fate of regulatory challenges and novel lawsuits, like localities suing oil companies for damages caused
by sea-level rise. Those judges could be weighing in on climate change cases long after Trump leaves 1600
Pennsylvania Ave. Trump's judicial appointments rank "pretty high" in terms of his climate change legacy, said Glenn Sugameli, who runs the
Judging the Environment project, which tracks judicial nominees' environmental records. "They're the ones that are going to
determine whether the actions taken by the Obama administration, by states and local governments are justified, are
legal, are sustainable," he said. And "they're the ones that are going to decide whether the actions taken by the
Trump administration are legal." Richard Lazarus, an environmental law expert and professor at Harvard Law School, said courts
have played an "outsized role" in climate policy in recent years because regulators are working with an old
law to deal with a problem its authors weren't specifically addressing. "The reason why the courts play a big role right now
is that, whether the executive branch is run by [President George W.] Bush or the executive branch is run by Obama, each
time they're kind of stuck with old language," Lazarus said, noting that the 1970 Clean Air Act hasn't seen a major
overhaul since 1990. The Obama administration tried to use the existing language to support the
administration's signature climate rule, the Clean Power Plan, and "you can expect that Trump judges
would be more skeptical of those activities." Trump has already picked one Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, a
conservative whose appointment was viewed by some as a nail in the coffin for legal efforts to preserve the Clean
Power Plan. Court watchers predict Trump may make one or more additional Supreme Court nominations before his term expires. Legal
experts note that judges' opinions in environmental cases won't necessarily fall strictly along ideological lines, but that conservative
judges are often more likely to reject arguments calling for more regulation or trying to fit climate change
rules within the existing Clean Air Act. Lazarus pointed to Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, as an example of a jurist who "is not ready to give EPA a lot of deference if they're taking
language which was crafted at one time and trying to push it at the edges to deal with a problem of another time, like climate
change." Kavanaugh, a Bush appointee who sits on the court that hears challenges to Clean Air Act rules, became known as a vocal
critic of Obama EPA rules.

Extinction -- litigation solves AND models.

Estrin ’16 [David; May 2016; Canada’s Senior Environmental Law Specialist, adjunct Professor at
Osgoode Hall Law School; Centre for International Governance Innovation, “Limiting Dangerous Climate
Change,” https://issuu.com/cigi/docs/paper_no.101; RP]

This ruling, like Urgenda, is an example of the new timeliness of climate litigation before domestic courts in
which some judges will enthusiastically engage with the legal challenge and use creativity to provide an effective
judicial remedy. Following the 2015 orders, Michael Gerrard, Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law
School, noted that “[e]ach successful ruling motivates people in other countries to try it....[I]t is useful to be able to
say to a judge that you are not the first one to do this. Others have already done it. Having a precedent is not binding, but
it’s helpful.”111 Foster v Washington Department of Ecology: Washington State Superior Court (United States) In a third significant 2015
decision, Foster v Washington Department of Ecology, 112 Judge Hollis Hill of the Washington State Superior Court, in ruling on a
petition by American children seeking more stringent state GHG emissions rules for their generation and future
generations, determined that the Washington State Ecology Department had a constitutional duty to diligently
exercise its regulatory authority to “protect the public’s interest in natural resources held in trust for the
common benefit of the people.”113 As in Urgenda and Leghari, the petitioners sought to have the court find a duty
on government to act on climate change, stressing that doing so is timely because of the availability of clear climate
science. This case, like the other two, “advances the fundamental duty of government today: to address the
climate crisis based on scientific baselines and benchmarks, and to do so within timeframes determined
by scientific analysis.”114 Judge Hill declared that “[the youths’] very survival depends upon the will of their elders
to act now, decisively and unequivocally, to stem the tide of global warming… before doing so becomes first too
costly and then too late.”115 Highlighting inextricable relationships between navigable waters and the atmosphere, and finding that
separating the two is “nonsensical,” the judge found the public trust doctrine mandates that the state act through
its designated agency “to protect what it holds in trust.” 116 While validating the youths’ claims that the “scientific
evidence is clear that the current rates of reduction mandated by Washington law cannot...ensure the
survival of an environment in which [youth] can grow to adulthood safely,”117 the court declined, in its November 2015 ruling, to
order the Ecology Department to promulgate the youths’ proposed rule, having regard to the fact that the department by then was undertaking
a review of its Clean Air Rule. However, the judge made clear that in that process the state has a “mandatory duty” to
“[p] reserve, protect, and enhance the air quality for the current and future generations.”118 The judge ruled that
“current scientific evidence establishes that rapidly increasing global warming causes an unprecedented
risk to the earth, including land, sea, the atmosphere and all living plants and creatures.”119 The case is a primary
example of how citizen litigation regarding climate harm can motivate and result in positive government
actions, even where initially the specific litigation relief claimed was not granted. The youth petitioners first requested that
the state initiate GHG rulemaking procedures in June 2014. After the state refused to do so in August of the same year, the youth appealed and
in a June 2015 decision highlighting the urgency of the climate crisis, the judge ordered the state to
reconsider the youths’ petition, taking into account current climate science. In July 2015, the youth plaintiffs met with the
state governor to plead their case personally. Eleven days later, Governor Jay Inslee ordered the Department of Ecology to
institute GHG rule making, which the youth had requested for more than a year. In August 2015, the department again refused the
youths’ request for a science-based rule making because the department had initiated similar rule making at the governor’s request. Because
the department also rejected the youths’ constitutional and public trust rights, the case was argued in front of Judge Hill on November 3, 2015.
Attorney Andrea Rodgers of the WELC, who acted for the petitioners, said in a statement following the November 19, 2015, decision that,
“Judge Hill has made it very clear what Ecology must do when promulgating the Clean Air Rule: preserve,
protect and enhance air quality for present and future generations and uphold the constitutional rights of
these young people.… We will hold Ecology accountable every step of the way to make sure that Judge Hill’s powerful words are put into
action. This is a huge victory for our children and for the climate movement .”120
2NC Impact
 2NC – OV (Warming)
It causes extinction from oxygen, disease, ice melt, and cognitive failure.
McKibben ’19 [Bill; April 9; Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, Fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences; Rolling Stone, “This Is How Human Extinction Could Play Out,”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bill-mckibben-falter-climate-change-817310/]

Oh, it could get very bad.

In 2015, a study in the Journal of Mathematical Biology pointed out that if

the world’s oceans kept warming, by 2100 they
might become hot enough to “stop oxygen production by phyto-plankton by disrupting the process of
photosynthesis.” Given that two-thirds of the Earth’s oxygen comes from phytoplankton, that would
“likely result in the mass mortality of animals and humans.”
A year later, above the Arctic Circle, in Siberia, a heat wave thawed a reindeer carcass that had been trapped in the permafrost. The exposed
body released anthrax into nearby water and soil, infecting two thousand reindeer grazing nearby, and they in turn infected some humans; a
twelve-year-old boy died. As it turns out, permafrost is a “very good preserver of microbes and viruses, because it is cold,
there is no oxygen, and it is dark” — scientists have managed to revive an eight-million-year-old bacterium they found beneath the surface of
a glacier. Researchers believe there are fragments of the Spanish flu virus, smallpox, and bubonic plague buried in Siberia
and Alaska.

Or consider this: as ice sheets melt, they take weight off land, and that can trigger earthquakes — seismic activity
is already increasing in Greenland and Alaska. Meanwhile, the added weight of the new seawater starts to bend the Earth’s crust. “That will give
you a massive increase in volcanic activity. It’ll activate faults to create earthquakes, submarine landslides, tsunamis, the whole lot,” explained
the director of University College London’s Hazard Centre. Such a landslide happened in Scandinavia about eight thousand years ago, as the
last Ice Age retreated and a Kentucky-size section of Norway’s continental shelf gave way, “plummeting down to the abyssal plain and creating
a series of titanic waves that roared forth with a vengeance,” wiping all signs of life from coastal Norway to Greenland and “drowning the
Wales-sized landmass that once connected Britain to the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.” When the waves hit the Shetlands, they were
sixty-five feet high.

There’s even this: if we keep raising carbon dioxide levels, we may not be able to think straight
anymore. At a thousand parts per million (which is within the realm of possibility for 2100), human cognitive ability falls 21
percent. “The largest effects were seen for Crisis Response, Information Usage, and Strategy,” a Harvard study reported, which is too bad, as
those skills are what we seem to need most.

Turns all other impacts.

Cribb ’17 [Julian; 2017; Principal of Julian Cribb & Associates, Fellow of the Australian Academy of
Technological Sciences and Engineering, former Director of National Awareness at the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; Surviving the 21st Century, “The Baker,” Ch. 4, p. 91-93;
DML]

This event, known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM, happened only about ten million years after the
dinosaurs were smashed by an asteroid impact. This ‘hyperthermal’ period took place quite suddenly (in geological terms)—in less than 2000
years—and lasted for about 170,000 years before the planet again cooled. The heat spike was accompanied by a major wipe-out of
ocean life in particular, though most small land mammals survived. Investigating the records of old marine sediments Zeebe was able to show
there had been a sharp, 70 %, leap in atmospheric CO 2 concentrations at the time. However, he concluded there was only
sufficient carbon available to force the climate to warm by 1–3 °C and that some
other mechanism must have been triggered by the
initial warming, which then drove the Earth’s temperature to fever pitch , up by another 4–6 °C (Zeebe et al. 2009). This process
is the ‘ runaway global warming ‘ which now menaces us. The significance of PETM is that it appears that about the same
volume of carbon was dumped by natural processes into the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans as humans are currently
dumping with the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of the world’s forests—about 3 trillion tonnes in all—and it
was this that triggered the hyperthermal surge in planetary heating. As to the mechanism that could
suddenly release a huge amount of extra carbon into the atmosphere and oceans and project global
temperatures up by 6–9 °C, the most likely explanation is the one described at the start of this chapter—the rapid
melting and escape of billions of tonnes of frozen methane, CH 4 , currently locked in tundra and seabed sediments. This
phenomenon, dubbed the “clathrate gun ” (Kennett et al. 2003), is now linked by scientists not only with the PETM event but also, according to
palaeontologist Peter Ward, with the Great Death of the Permian, the worst annihilation in the history of life on Earth (Ward 2008). The
significance of the clathrates is that they consist of methane, a gas that is 72 times more powerful than CO 2 as a climate forcing agent in the
short run, and 25 times stronger over a century or so. The clathrates could be released by a process known as ‘ ocean overturning ’, a shift in
global current patterns caused by moderate warming, which brings warmer water from the surface down into the depths, to melt the deposits
of frozen gas. Unlocking several trillion tonnes of methane would cause global temperatures to rocket upwards sharply. Once such a process
gets under way, most experts consider, warming will happen so fast it is doubtful if humans could do anything to stop it even if they instantly
ceased all burning of fossil fuels. This ‘double whammy’ of global warming caused by humans releasing three trillion tonnes of
fossil carbon which then precipitates an uncontrollable second phase driven by the melting of all or part of the five trillion tonnes of natural
methane deposits (Buff et & Archer 2004) is the principal threat to civilisation in the twenty-first century and, combined with nuclear
conflict (Chap. 4), to the survival of the human species. The IPCC’s fifth report states that the melting of between 37 and 81 % of
the world’s tundra permafrost is ‘virtually certain’ adding “There is a high risk of substantial carbon and methane
emissions as a result of permafrost thawing ” ((IPCC 2014a), p. 74). This could involve the venting of as much as 920 billion
tonnes of carbon. However, the Panel did not venture an estimate for methane emissions from the melting of the far larger seabed clathrates
and a number of scientists have publicly criticised the world’s leading climate body for remaining so close-lipped about this mega-threat to
human existence. The IPCC’s reticence is thought to be founded on a lack of adequate scientific data to make a pronouncement with confidence
—and partly to fear of the mischief which the fossil fuels lobby would make of any premature estimates. However, it critics argue, by the time
we know for sure that the Arctic and seabed methane is escaping in large volumes, it will be too late to do anything about it. The difficulty is
that no-one knows how quickly the Earth will heat up, as this depends on something that cannot be scientifically predicted: the behaviour of
the whole human species and the timeliness with which we act. Failure to abolish carbon emissions in time will make a 4–
5 °C rise in temperature likely . As to what that may mean, here are some eminent opinions : • Warming of 5 °C will mean the planet
can support fewer than 1 billion people—Hans-Joachim Shellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (Kanter 2009) • With
temperature increases of 4–7 °C billions of people will have to move and there will be very severe conflict—
Nicholas Stern, London School of Economics (Kanter 2009) • Food shortages, refugee crises, flooding of major cities and entire island nations,
mass extinction of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it may be dangerous for people to work or play outside during the
hottest times of the year—IPCC Fifth Assessment (IPCC 2014b) • Corn and soybean yields in the US may decrease by 63–82 %—Schlenker and
Roberts, Arizona State University (Schlenker & Roberts 2009a) • Up to 35% of the Earth’s species will be committed to
extinction—Chris Thomas, University of Leeds (Thomas et al. 2004) • Total polar melting combined with thermal expansion could involve
sea levels eventually rising by 65 m (180 ft), i.e. to the 20th floor of tall buildings, drowning most of the world’s coastal
cities and displacing a third or more of the human population (Winkelmann et al. 2015) • Intensified global
instability, hunger, poverty and conflict. Food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over
refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe—Chuck Hagel, US
Secretary for Defence (Hagel 2014) • “Almost inconceivable challenges as human society struggles to adapt… billions of people forced to
relocate.… worsening
tensions especially over resources… armed conflict is likely and nuclear war is
possible”— Kurt Campbell, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Campell et al. 2007). • “Unless we get control of
(global warming), it will mean our extinction eventually”—Helen Berry, Canberra University (Snow & Hannam 2014).
 2NC – AT: Inevitable
Action mitigates the worst impact, every degree matters, and there’s no such thing as
“irreversible” loops.
Goodstein ’19 [Eban; June 2019; Director of the Center for Environmental Policy and the MBA Program
in Sustainability at Bard College, Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Michigan, B.A. in Geology
from Williams College; Lead The Change, “Too Late to Stop Global Warming? A Response to Franzen,”
https://leadthechange.bard.edu/blog/too-late-to-stop-global-warming-a-response-to-franzen]

So do we need to look Greta Thunberg and our other children in the eyes and say, sorry, but you need to be realistic? That a
transition to a 100% clean energy economy is just not going to happen fast enough ? That the global economy
will soon collapse and billions of people will be homeless? Tell them, forget aggressive measures to cut emissions like the
Green New Deal, focus instead on social adaptation?

No.

Climate despair is gaining dangerous traction among people who understand the profound moment in which we are living.
But Franzen is wrong on the science, wrong on the impacts of two degree warming, and wrong on what it will take to stabilize the
climate. And this is precisely the wrong historical moment to abandon belief in a finer future. Climate solutions are now cheaper
then fossil fuels, and getting cheaper. People are embracing programs and initiatives around environmental education. It lies
within our grasp to rewire the world with clean energy. Doing so in the next decade will deeply impact the lives not only of our
children and grandchildren, but indeed, every human being and living creature who will walk the face of the planet, from now until the end of
time.

Is it too Late to Stop Global Warming?

NASA scientist Jim Hansen introduced the “too late” language about climate change in 2005, arguing that “We have to stabilize emissions of
carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree [C].” We did not, and his prediction is now reality. Hansen
also warned fifteen years ago, “we don’t have much time left”.

Last year, the IPCC set another guide-post. Holding temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius will require a clean energy transition to be far advanced
When scientists
by 2030. And to keep temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius we have until 2050 to largely decarbonize the global economy.
say “too late” on climate change, what they mean simply is that we have foreclosed any likelihood of staying
within a particular global warming temperature target.

If governments take no serious action at all in the coming few decades, then we are likely to wind up at between 3
and 5 degrees Celsius of heating. To put that last number in perspective, during the last Ice Age, when my hometown in New York
state was covered by hundreds of meters of ice, the world was only 5 degrees Celsius colder than it is now. Unchecked we are on track for
a warming that could easily hit Ice Age magnitude, only in the opposite direction, within the lifetime of my students.

So we do have a choice. Our action, or our inaction, will determine how much the world heats up. As detailed
below, it
is absolutely not too late, and will not be for decades. We have to fight and win a war now for clean
energy, acting aggressively to hold global warming to the low end. A world that is 2 degrees hotter will be
much, much better than one that is 3, 4 or 5. Every tenth of a degree will matter for our kids and grandkids.
No Runaway Greenhouse at 2 Degrees

So how can Franzen and others possibly say we should admit defeat? His main argument is that this possibility of
holding future heating to a range, from 2 to 5 degrees, does not really exist. Instead, we are already headed across a
tipping point:
“Our atmosphere and oceans can absorb only so much heat before climate change, intensified by various feedback loops, spins
completely out of control. The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global
mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (maybe a little more, but also maybe a little less)… In the long run, it probably makes
no difference how badly we overshoot two degrees; once the point of no return is passed, the world will become self-transforming.”

Here are the key lines: “The consensus among scientists and policy makers” is that above 2 degrees Celsius or a little more, the climate “spins
completely out of control”.This is just wrong, and Franzen provides no evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. Yes, positive
feedback loops like widespread, fire-driven deforestation or massive methane releases could collectively drive the planetary
temperature upwards in an ever less controllable spiral. These are possibilities, risks we need to reduce. Indeed, the risks get higher the
more global warming pollution we emit, yet another critical reason to aggressively reduce it now. But I know of no scientific source
—let alone a “consensus”—maintaining that such a “self-transforming” runaway greenhouse scenario is
inevitable or that it will be triggered at close to 2 degrees Celsius. Without this assertion, Franzen’s “too
late” argument falls apart. Four degrees will be far worse then three, which will be far worse then two.
So we have to fight like hell today for two or better.
 2NC -- Turns Case
Conservative courts turn case -- make enforcement impossible, strike down liberal
CJR, and greenlight unchecked conservatism.
Millhiser ’20 [Ian; February 4; Senior correspondent, J.D. from Duke University; Vox, “What Trump has
done to the courts, explained,” https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/9/20962980/trump-
supreme-court-federal-judges; RP]

And that’s not all. In the coming months, the courts are poised to gut abortion rights, eviscerate gun control, and
neuter landmark environmental laws. Federal judges have already stripped workers of their ability to assert
many of their rights against their employers, and this process is likely to accelerate in the near future. Many of our voting
rights lay in tatters, thanks to conservative judicial appointments, and this process is likely to accelerate as well.
When Congress has been unable to function, the executive branch has relied on existing federal laws that
delegate some policymaking authority to federal agencies, in order to deal with many of the nation’s pressing needs. But with
the Supreme Court poised to give judges a veto power over these agencies’ actions, the courts could in
effect strike down any regulation they dislike. In a Republican-controlled judiciary, this likely means that
Republican administrations will retain broad discretionary authority, but Democratic administrations will be
hobbled. And here’s the thing: We probably will not fully understand just how much power Trump’s judges will wield
until after Trump leaves office. Right now, the executive branch is ideologically aligned with Trump’s judges, so those judges are less
likely to object to the Trump administration’s actions than more liberal jurists. But it’s a fairly safe bet that Trump’s judges would
spend an Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden administration wreaking havoc on the new president’s agenda — and
that any future Democratic president will face similar opposition.

AND packing makes the judiciary itself unworkable.

Rosenberg ’17 [Paul; December 3; Columnist, citing political analysts; Salon, “GOP's court-packing
spree: It's only the beginning,” https://www.salon.com/2017/12/03/gops-court-packing-spree-its-only-
the-beginning/; RP]

It’s this
assumption, he writes, that “can explain what would otherwise be one of the most puzzling aspects of the
proposal — that is, the paper’s seeming unconcern with provoking a judgeship arms race that could make the
federal judiciary both unworkable and obviously partisan.”

Link alone crushes legitimacy and turns solvency.

Martin et al ‘6 [Andrew, James Rogers, Roy Flemming, and Jon Bond; September 19; Professor of
Political Science at Washington University; Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University;
Professor Emeritus at Texas A&M University; Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University,
Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Institutional Games and the U.S. Supreme
Court, “Statutory Battles and Constitutional Wars,” Ch. 1; RP]

But the large policy payoff is in constitutional cases. What

does the ability of the president and Congress to attack—
through overrides or other means— constitutional court decisions imply in terms of the costs the justices bear? If an
attack succeeds and the Court does not back down, it effectively removes the Court from the policy
game and may seriously or, even, irrevocably harm its reputation, credibility, and legitimacy. Indeed, such an
attack would effectively remove the Court from policymaking, thus incurring an infinite cost. 3 With no
constitutional prescriptions for judicial review, this power is vulnerable, and would be severely
damaged if Congress and the president were effective in an attack on the Court. But even if the attack attempt is
unsuccessful, the integrity of the Court may be damaged, for the assault may compromise its ability to
make future constitutional decisions and, thus, more long-lasting policy.
To make predictions about constraints on the Court, these costs and benefits must simply be compared. When weighing the policy benefit with
the negligible institutional cost of being overturned in statutory cases, the justices need not pay attention to the other branches of government.
This is because statutory decisions are comparatively fleeting. Constitutional decisions, however, are a different issue. In these
decisions, the justices are motivated by a large policy benefit, because constitutional decisions are those that can affect larger policy change. At
the same time, these decisions can cost the Court as an institution if Congress and the president launch an
attack. While the probability of such an attack is minuscule, a successful attack would effectively remove the Court from
the separation-of-powers system. We would therefore expect justices to temper their unfettered policy preferences in response to
the separation of powers in constitutional cases.
 2NC -- Abortion
Court packing shutters abortion rights -- the ninth circuit is key.
McCarthy ’20 [Tom; April 28; National affairs correspondent, citing Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at
the Brookings Institution; The Guardian, “Trump's judges: a revolution to create a new conservative
America,” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/28/donald-trump-judges-create-new-
conservative-america-republicans; RP]

“We had fears about what these jurists would do when they got on the bench, just from their records,” said
Marge Baker, executive vice-president of People for the American Way (PFAW), which has just unveiled a report called Shredding the Social
Safety Net on “the Republican plot to use federal courts to destroy public health”.

“This administration more than any has really been putting movement ideologues on the bench who have an
agenda. And once we got far enough into the administration, we realized that the judges about whom we had fears were
issuing decisions that were highly problematic.”

A clear example of the impact of Trump’s judicial project was seen last spring, when the Trump administration stepped up
its war on reproductive rights with new regulations gagging healthcare providers from fully counseling
millions of mostly low-income women about their options while pregnant.

The new rules threatened to shutter Planned Parenthood clinics and other facilities that offer abortion
services alongside healthcare subsidized by federal funds.

As with Trump’s original travel ban, the family

planning regulations seemed clearly illegal, with a decades-old reef of
legislation protecting healthcare funding from just such attacks by conservative activists.

Three western states immediately sued, and before long a trio of district courts had issued injunctions
suspending the new Trump rules. The cases landed on appeal as a package last summer before the ninth circuit court, one of
the 13 federal appeals courts, a step below the US supreme court, which are the last stop for justice in almost every case.

That locks in civil-war era polarization AND overwhelms cooperation on every threat.
Rosen ‘6 [Jeffrey; June 2006; Professor of Law at George Washington University, President of the
National Constitution Center; The Atlantic, “The Day After Roe,”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-day-after-roe/304882/]

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will set off tectonic shifts in the American political
landscape not seen since the civil-rights movement—or perhaps even the Civil War
With the recent appointment by President Bush of two Supreme Court justices, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., interest groups on
the left and the right are preparing for the end of Roe v. Wade. Leaders in both camps believe that the demise of Roe may occur sooner rather
than later, and they have different scenarios for how the coup de grâce might be delivered. Imagine, for example, that Justice John Paul
Stevens, having just turned eighty-six, decides to retire from the Supreme Court in July. President Bush, under pressure to appoint a reliable
conservative to mobilize his base for the midterm elections, nominates Judge Edith Jones of Texas, a fire-breathing social conservative who has
written that “one may fervently hope” courts will reconsider Roe v. Wade. Outraged Senate Democrats then mount a filibuster, and the
Republicans respond with the so-called nuclear option, eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominations by a simple majority vote. Jones is then
confirmed along party lines, fifty-five to forty-five. She joins the Court in October, just in time to hear a constitutional challenge to the federal
ban on “partial-birth” abortions that the justices have already agreed to review. In June of next year, the Supreme Court hands down its
decision. By a 5–4 vote, the justices not only uphold the right of Congress and the states to ban partial-birth abortions, which often occur
late in pregnancy, but also overturn Roe v. Wade, thus allowing the states to ban or restrict abortions from the
very beginning of pregnancy.
No one except Justice Stevens, of course, knows whether he is inclined to retire, and even if he did, no one knows whether the five votes would
emerge to overturn Roe cleanly. (For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t bet on Chief Justice Roberts’s siding unequivocally with the anti-Roe forces.)
But seriouspeople on both sides of the abortion divide are girding themselves for the fights in Congress
and the state legislatures that they believe will erupt once Roe is finally uprooted. And states like South Dakota
are so convinced that Roe’s demise is imminent that they are racing to pass sweeping bans on abortion designed to encourage the Supreme
Court to administer the last rites. So let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the activists are correct and the long-anticipated moment has
finally come to pass: Roe v. Wade is no longer on the books. What happens next?

The results might not be what you expect. The day after Roe fell, of course, abortion would be neither legal nor illegal throughout the United
States. Instead, the states and Congress would be free to ban, protect, or regulate abortion as they saw fit. But in
many of the fifty
states, and ultimately in Congress, the overturning of Roe would probably ignite one of the most
explosive political battles since the civil-rights movement, if not the Civil War. A careful look at how the pieces of the Rubik’s
Cube might begin to turn the day after Roe suggests that access to abortion wouldn’t necessarily become less widely available than it is now;
that the Democrats could gain politically, perhaps even seizing the White House and both chambers of Congress; and that, when the dust
settles, in five or ten or thirty years, early-term abortions would be protected and late-term ones restricted.

Throughout American history, the Supreme Court, often derided as the least democratic branch of the federal government, has, paradoxically,
best maintained its legitimacy when it has functioned as the most democratic branch—that is, when it has deferred to the constitutional views
of Congress, the president, and the country as a whole. For all the invective initially generated by Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed
school segregation, the decision was supported by more than half of the country when it was handed down in 1954, a time when southern
minorities were blocking Congress from enacting the civil-rights legislation that the public supported. Many of the most famous decisions by the
Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts similarly reflected the popular will: a survey of eighty-eight civil-rights and civil-liberties cases between
1953 and 1994 found that, in most instances, the Supreme Court was generally in sync with public opinion. When public opinion opposed a
particular rights claim, so, by and large, did the Supreme Court.

Roe v. Wade was an entirely different matter. The Court’s decision, in 1973, to strike down abortion laws in forty-six states and the District of
Columbia was high-handed, and represents one of the few times in history that the Court leaped ahead of a national consensus. In every Gallup
Poll since soon after Roe was decided, small minorities of Americans—in the 20 percent range on each side—have said that abortion should be
always illegal or always legal, while a large majority has said it should be legal under some circumstances and especially at the beginning of
pregnancy. Later, the Court continued to ignore popular opinion when it struck down, in the name of Roe, many practices enthusiastically
supported by the public, including spousal-notification laws, parental-consent laws, and informed-consent requirements. Critics of Roe v. Wade
often compare it to the Dred Scott decision on slavery before the Civil War. In both cases, the Supreme Court overturned political compromises
that national majorities supported, provoking dramatic political backlashes.

The Court seemed to align itself better with public opinion when it reaffirmed Roe in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision: abortions
that take place before fetal viability (about twenty-four weeks) had to be protected, the Court declared, but those after viability could be
restricted. And yet the Court departed from this moderate and widely accepted compromise eight years later, in Stenbergv. Carhart, when it
struck down laws in thirty-one states banning partial-birth abortion—laws that are currently supported, according to a recent Gallup Poll, by 70
percent of the American people. If the Court decides to reverse Stenberg next year and to uphold the federal law banning partial-birth
abortions, it might still preserve the core protections of Roe v. Wade for choice early in pregnancy. If so, it would express the sentiments of the
majority of Americans on abortion far more faithfully than the current White House and Congress are likely to do.

If, on the other hand, the Court does seize the opportunity to overturn Roe, it would at least allow national majorities to eventually make their
constitutional views about abortion clear. The Court has served itself well in the past by upholding state and federal laws in the face of
uncertainty about the constitutional views of the American people, and by deferring to those of the other branches of government, rather than
blindly following the polls. Still, if a national referendum were held the day after Roe fell, there’s little doubt that early-term abortions would be
protected and that later-term abortions would be restricted. But the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide for government by referendum.
Because of the intricacies of American federalism, and the polarization of American politics
exacerbated by Roe itself, the moderate national consensus about abortion might not be reflected in
law for years to come, and the political landscape could be transformed beyond recognition. What follows is
a guide to the battles that might break out in Congress, the states, the White House, and the courts after Roe falls.

I: The States The day after Roe, the handful of state abortion bans that were passed before Roe but never formally repealed would arguably
spring back to life. According to Clarke Forsythe, of Americans United for Life, there are eleven state laws already on the books that would ban
abortion throughout pregnancy without making exceptions for threats to a woman’s health. (Most have narrow exceptions allowing abortion in
cases where the life of the mother is seriously threatened; some also include exceptions for rape or incest.) In at least seven of these eleven
states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin), the draconian abortion bans have never been blocked
by state courts as violations of state constitutional rights, and therefore could, in theory, be immediately enforced. If the governor or attorney
general in any of these states announced an intention to support these miraculously rejuvenated abortion bans, and if state courts agreed that
the bans hadn’t been implicitly repealed, abortions might indeed be outlawed in most circumstances. Even in the most conservative states,
however, the overturning of Roe would put any pro-life governor or attorney general in a tight spot. For the truth is that draconian state bans
on abortion that failed to provide widely supported exceptions would likely be unpopular with majorities in all the states in question. According
to Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University professor who has studied public opinion on abortion, there would be majority opposition to any law
that failed to include these exceptions, even in the most conservative states. “My guess is that any state that has a total prohibition on abortion
—that can’t stand,” Wilcox told me. “If you look at the polls, you’ll never get more than 15 or 20 percent that would ban all abortions. Across
the board, around 75 percent are in favor of exceptions for rape, incest, and fetal defect, as well as the life and health of the mother. Even in
the most conservative states, that will be over 50 percent.” In other words, there’s less variation among states when it comes to public
attitudes about abortion than you might expect. In national Gallup Polls over the last thirty years, two-thirds of Americans have consistently
said that abortion should be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy, although in the second trimester, the number plummets to 25 percent,
and in the third trimester it falls further, to 10 percent. And since 1973, according to polls conducted by the National Opinion Research Center,
overwhelming majorities—between 80 and 90 percent—have said that abortion should be available to a woman if her health is seriously
endangered by the pregnancy, or in cases of rape or risk of serious fetal defects. Whether in conservative states like Texas, swing states like
Ohio and Pennsylvania, or liberal states like California, public support for access to abortion in cases of rape, fetal defect, and threats to a
woman’s health, as well as for restrictions on abortion generally, is overwhelming. The current abortion drama in South Dakota provides the
best predictor of what might happen if a handful of other states try to resurrect old abortion bans, or pass new ones, that fail to include
exceptions for rape, incest, and serious threats to a woman’s health. In March, South Dakota became the first state since Roe was decided to
pass a law that bans all abortions except when a woman’s life is seriously threatened. The law, which contains no other exceptions, was
opposed by many national pro-life organizations, which contended that it went too far. And their misgivings proved to be prescient. As soon as
the ink was dry on the South Dakota law, a backlash started to develop. A group called Focus South Dakota began collecting signatures for a
recall referendum that seeks to place the abortion ban on the ballot in November, giving the citizens of the state an opportunity to repeal it.
That group’s own statewide polls, at least, suggest that the recall referendum has a good chance of succeeding. In its survey of registered South
Dakota voters, taken a week after the abortion ban passed, 57 percent said they would vote to repeal the ban, and 33 percent said they would
vote to uphold it. According to Jim Robinson, who conducted the poll for Focus South Dakota, these results are entirely consistent with the
responses of South Dakota voters over the past two decades. “The number of voters who say abortion shouldn’t be legal under any
circumstances has stayed pretty much the same for years, at about 15 percent,” Robinson told me. “You can add another 20 percent who think
there should only be an exception for the life of the mother. We’ve known for some time that this sort of ban would be opposed in the state
two to one, which is pretty much the same as the national numbers. But because one party is in control here, you have an extreme minority
who came to dominate the legislature and drank their own Kool-Aid.” Since the South Dakota ban passed, the approval rating of the governor,
Mike Rounds, has dropped by 12 percentage points, and several state legislators have announced their intention to switch parties from
Republican to Democrat. Legislators who voted for the ban, including a few Democrats, already face primary challenges from abortion
moderates. Robert Burns, a political-science professor at South Dakota State University, thinks the backlash against the South Dakota law could
precipitate a political realignment in the state, helping Democrats in state senate elections as well as influencing the gubernatorial and
congressional elections. Burns suggests that Republican pro-choice voters, who had been willing to support pro-life legislators as long as the
disagreement seemed symbolic, may desert the party. And if South Dakota–style bans on abortion were imposed in other states, the evidence
is that they would be equally unpopular. Polls taken in March by organizations ranging from Pew to Fox News produced similar findings: by
about a 59 to 36 percent margin, voters oppose a South Dakota–style ban in their own state. And 62 percent in the Fox News poll said that they
supported the right to choose if the pregnancy “risks the mother’s mental health.” The day after Roe v. Wade falls, members of the pro-life
movement will face a choice: Will they heed the lessons of South Dakota and include at least a physical-health exception in any abortion law, or
will they doom themselves to political defeat? This choice could split the movement in two, and legislatures in some pro-life states might prefer
principled failure to pragmatic accommodation. Not all of the seven states where the pre-Roe abortion bans are lurking have a popular-recall
procedure. This means there might be some states where most citizens would oppose the rejuvenated abortion ban but a defiant state
legislature would refuse to repeal it. This is a recipe for voter revolt. In other states—such as Michigan and Arkansas—pro-life legislators could
try to head off a recall referendum by modifying the resurrected abortion bans to reflect the will of the voters. In the end, few of the seven
states that reconsidered their old abortion bans would be likely to settle on laws as extreme as South Dakota’s. After the Supreme Court
seemed to be on the verge of overturning Roe, in 1989, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Louisiana introduced a bill that would ban
abortion with exceptions for threats to the woman’s life but not for rape or incest. The governor vetoed the bill, and rape and incest exceptions
were finally added. But even rape and incest exceptions are too narrow to satisfy voters in most states, who support some kind of health
exception as well.

The day after Roe, a handful of states would try not only to revive old abortion bans but also to pass new ones. “The real battles will occur in
the red states, and they will be knock-down, drag-out battles,” says the Republican consultant Whit Ayres. In the wake of the South Dakota law,
a number of state legislatures (including those in Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and
West Virginia) are now considering extreme bills that would make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions unless the life of the mother is
threatened, with no other exceptions. The Mississippi ban has already passed the state house of representatives, which added exceptions for
rape and incest, and Governor Haley Barbour has pledged to sign it if it passes the state senate. And yet, the day after Roe, even pro-life
legislators would have to think twice about passing abortion bans without the health exceptions that a majority of the public clearly favors.
These representatives, unable to depend on the bans being struck down by the courts, would face the certainty of a voter rebellion if they
defied public sentiment.

In short, the overturning of Roe would put pro-life legislators in an agonizing position: many are inalterably opposed to including an exception
for threats to women’s health; they argue that these exceptions have been broadly interpreted by doctors and courts in the past to include
psychological as well as physical health, in effect subverting the bans and making abortions available throughout pregnancy. “People in the pro-
life movement are opposed to health exceptions in any form,” the pro-life scholar Paul Linton told me. “On the other hand, people will have to
consider whether a narrow physical health exception might be a political necessity.” If any of these states now pondering extreme bills did, in
fact, pass broad bans without a health exception, they should expect voter insurrections similar to the one now taking shape in South Dakota.
By contrast, if health exceptions were included, although abortions might be formally restricted in some states from the beginning of pregnancy
—a significant change in the law—elective abortions might, in practice, remain widely available for those who were willing to negotiate the
procedural hurdles involved in proving a threat to their mental or physical health.

The day after Roe, of course, there would be just as much mobilization in blue states to protect abortion as there would be in red states to
restrict it. Even without Roe v. Wade, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, a woman’s right to choose would be secure in about
twenty-three states. Six of these (California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, and Washington) already have laws on the books
protecting choice throughout pregnancy. In ten others (Alaska, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Tennessee, and West Virginia), state courts have ruled that their state constitutions protect abortion rights broadly throughout
pregnancy. And in seven more (Hawaii, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming), the political climate is sympathetic
to choice, and citizens are likely to demand strong new laws protecting abortion.

The day after Roe, pro-choice activists in the most liberal states would have to be careful not to overreach, to avoid duplicating the errors of
their pro-life counterparts in the most conservative states. If, for example, pro-choice activists make clear to state legislators in Iowa that they
won’t accept any state law that imposes restrictions on late-term, partial-birth abortions, which are intensely unpopular throughout the
country, they may alienate the moderate middle of the electorate. But regardless of potential self-inflicted wounds by Democratic activists, the
right to choose in the twenty-three bedrock pro-choice states is likely to remain broadly available throughout pregnancy.

It’s conceivable that a year or two after Roe, as

many as a dozen red states would adopt draconian restrictions on
abortions throughout pregnancy, while a larger group of more populous blue states would offer the
same access to abortion as they do now. What effect would this have on the national abortion rate? “My guess is that no more
than a dozen states could sustain a total abortion ban, and these are principally states where virtually no legal abortions are performed today,”
says Gerald Rosenberg, a University of Chicago professor who has studied the effects of Roe on abortion rates. “That doesn’t mean that
individual lives wouldn’t be severely impacted, but in terms of national numbers, the effect would be small.” For example, if the South Dakota
ban survived the overturning of Roe, the national impact would be negligible. In 2000, fewer than 1,000 women obtained abortions in South
Dakota, representing one-tenth of 1 percent of all the abortions performed in the United States. That year, there were only two abortion
providers in the state, and about 30 percent of South Dakota residents who sought abortions traveled to other states, such as Colorado and
Nebraska. If the South Dakota abortion ban took effect, that percentage would certainly rise. But while women in the most conservative states
would increasingly travel for abortions in a post-Roe world, the fact is they have been traveling for abortions throughout the three decades Roe
has been on the books. In 2000, according to a report by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organization, 87 percent of all
counties in the United States had no abortion providers, one-third of all American women lived in these counties, and 25 percent of all the
women who obtained abortions traveled at least fifty miles to do so. “In the past, the impact of some state restrictions that tried to limit access
to abortion was primarily to delay rather than prevent abortions, because women can travel to another state,” Lawrence B. Finer of the
Guttmacher Institute told me. “But if more and more states pass such restrictions, it becomes harder to travel, which could have a
disproportionate impact on poorer women.”

A dozen state abortion bans might not dramatically change the national abortion rate, but they would dramatically change state and national
politics. After Roe, women with disposable incomes would still be able to travel to have an abortion. Poor women, on the other hand, might be
forced to seek abortions from illegal local providers. If television footage began to show arrests of illegal abortion doctors, the political
framework for the abortion debate would almost certainly be transformed. “With Roe on the books, the focus of the abortion debate has
tended to be on issues like partial-birth abortion, which is a huge political winner for Republicans,” says Michael Klarman of the University of
Virginia, a scholar of the Court and public opinion. “If you take Roe off the books, the focus will be on poor women in a handful of states trying
to get illegal abortions, and these highly salient examples are going to benefit the other side.”

A year or so after Roe, state legislators in a large group of swing states would probably remain undecided about precisely which abortion
regulations to adopt. This can only mean they would
be consumed by the abortion debate. The extraordinary
spectacle of fifty state legislatures fighting over the question of when life begins would rivet the nation and
overwhelm the state legislators themselves, many of whom are part-time representatives with little aptitude or inclination for debating
the finer points of ontology. “My single biggest concern is that abortion politics will simply dominate state
legislatures in many states, even those in which there’s no majority for a criminalization strategy, in ways that
will be very unpredictable and will distract policy makers from almost everything else,” says Ed Kilgore of the
moderate Democratic Leadership Council. “In swing states, Democrats would be under pressure to sponsor state legislation re-establishing the
right to choose, and they’d have to make some hard choices about how extensive to make that. I’ve talked to a few state legislators, and
everyone has expressed a sense of horror.”
Extinction.
Rice ’18 [Susan; January 25; Research Fellow at the School of International Service at American
University, senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs, D.Phil. and M.Phil. in International Relations from New College Oxford, former national security
adviser to President Obama and United States ambassador to the United Nations; New York Times, “We
Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Us,” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/opinion/national-security-
polarization.html; RP]
It is well documented that Americans are ever more divided: along party, ideological, socio-economic and cultural lines; by geographic,
demographic, racial and religious differences. Our political
polarization hampers our ability to tackle important
national issues, whether immigration, infrastructure , timely budgeting or closing Guantánamo. The recent
government shutdown and the looming threat of another underscore this problem .

The same policystagnation afflicts our ability to confront the most pressing threats to our security, from
North Korea to the risk of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, from pandemic disease to
Russian aggression. Our ability to counter such outside menaces is increasingly undermined by our
collective failure to work together. Indeed, the most significant, long-term threat to our security may be our
domestic political polarization.

America’s adversaries exploit the vulnerability created by our dysfunctional democracy. Today, in contrast to
Sept. 11, a terrorist attack is more likely to divide than unite us , as we saw after Benghazi, San Bernardino, Calif., and, most
recently, Niger. This makes us an even more attractive target, as our enemies benefit not only from the initial attack
but also from the lasting consequences of a more fractious, fragmented America.

Similarly, the
Iranians know that our resolve to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon may crumble
under partisan pressure. China is pursuing its economic and strategic ambitions in Asia unconstrained by an
America so divided that we jettisoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement we negotiated, while its signatories reap its
rewards without us.

The Russians, too, have preyed on our divisions, interfering in the 2016 presidential election; they reportedly
continue to amplify false news stories on social media that stoke fear of “the other.” This is how Russia reached and likely influenced
voters with messages that magnify mutual hostility and favor particular candidates.

Our divisions impede our ability to defend against foreign adversaries. Two of the three congressional investigations
into Russian meddling in the 2016 election are foundering over partisan efforts to distract from mounting evidence supporting the intelligence
community’s high confidence that such meddling occurred. The special counsel, Robert Mueller, and the F.B.I. have also been subjected to
outrageous and dishonest assaults on their integrity and professionalism.
 2NC -- Democracy
Court packing destroys democracy by weaponizing institutions.
Levitsky and Ziblatt ’17 [Steven and Daniel; December 7; Professors of Government at Harvard
University; The New Republic, “How a Democracy Dies,”
https://newrepublic.com/article/145916/democracy-dies-donald-trump-contempt-for-american-
political-institutions; RP]

By and large, however, overt dictatorships have disappeared across much of the world. Violent seizures of power are rare.
But there’s another way to break a democracy: not at the hands of generals, but of elected leaders who
subvert the very process that brought them to power. In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez was freely elected president, but
he used his soaring popularity (and the country’s vast oil wealth) to tilt the playing field against opponents, packing the
courts, blacklisting critics, bullying independent media, and eventually eliminating presidential term limits so that he could remain in
power indefinitely. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán used his party’s parliamentary majority to pack the
judiciary with loyalists and rewrite the constitutional and electoral rules to weaken opponents. Elected
leaders have similarly subverted democratic institutions in Ecuador, Georgia, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Sri Lanka,
Turkey, Ukraine, and elsewhere. In these cases, there are no tanks in the streets. Constitutions and other nominally
democratic institutions remain in place. People still vote. Elected autocrats maintain a veneer of democracy while
eviscerating its substance. This is how most democracies die today: slowly, in barely visible steps. How vulnerable
is American democracy to such a fate? Extremist demagogues emerge from time to time in all societies, even in healthy
democracies. An essential test of this kind of vulnerability isn’t whether such figures emerge but whether
political leaders, and especially political parties, work to prevent them from gaining power. When established
parties opportunistically invite extremists into their ranks, they imperil democracy. Once a would-be
authoritarian makes it to power, democracies face a second critical test: Will the autocratic leader subvert
democratic institutions or be constrained by them? Institutions alone are not enough to rein in elected
autocrats. Constitutions must be defended—by political parties and organized citizens, but also by democratic norms,
or unwritten rules of toleration and restraint. Without robust norms, constitutional checks and balances do not serve as
the bulwarks of democracy we imagine them to be. Instead, institutions become political weapons, wielded
forcefully by those who control them against those who do not. This is how elected autocrats subvert democracy—
packing and “weaponizing” the courts and other neutral agencies, buying off the media and the private sector (or bullying them
into silence), and rewriting the rules of politics to permanently disadvantage their rivals. The tragic paradox
of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s enemies use the very institutions of
democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it. The United States failed the first test in November
2016, when it elected a president with no real allegiance to democratic norms. Donald Trump’s surprise victory was
made possible not only by public disaffection but also by the Republican Party’s failure to keep an extremist demagogue from gaining the
nomination. How serious a threat does this now represent? Many observers take comfort in the U.S.
Constitution, which was designed precisely to thwart and contain demagogues like Trump. The Madisonian
system of checks and balances has endured for more than two centuries. It survived the Civil War, the Great Depression,
the Cold War, and Watergate. Surely, then, it will be able to survive the current president? We are less certain. Democracies
work best—and survive longer—when constitutions are reinforced by norms of mutual toleration and
restraint in the exercise of power. For most of the twentieth century, these norms functioned as the guardrails of
American democracy, helping to avoid the kind of partisan fights-to-the-death that have destroyed
democracies elsewhere in the world, including in Europe in the 1930s and South America in the 1960s and 1970s. But
those norms are now weakening. By the time Barack Obama became president, many Republicans, in particular,
questioned the legitimacy of their Democratic rivals and had abandoned restraint for a strategy of winning
by any means necessary. Donald Trump has accelerated this process, but he didn’t cause it. The challenges
we face run deeper than one president, however troubling this one might be.

Democratic governance solves extinction.

Hadley ’17 [Stephen; March 21; Chair of the Board of Directors at the United States Institute of Peace,
former director of the National Security Council, J.D. from Yale University; United States Institute of
Peace, “America’s Role in the World,” https://www.usip.org/publications/2017/03/americas-role-world;
RP]

Over the past seventy years, Democratic and Republican administrations alike have understood that American security and
prosperity at home are linked to economic and political health abroad, and that America does better when
other countries have the incentive and the capacity to work alongside us in tackling global challenges.
This is why we constructed a system of international institutions and security alliances after World War II. They
provided a framework for advancing economic openness and political freedom in the years that followed. The international order
America built and led has not been perfect, but it has coincided with a period of security and prosperity unmatched
in human history. And while many nations benefited from the investments America made in global security and prosperity, none benefited
more than the United States. Yet today, the
value of America’s global engagement is under question. A substantial number of
Americans feel that their lives and livelihoods have been threatened rather than enhanced by it. They view
international trade as having shuttered the factories at which they worked, immigrants as threatening their standard of living or safety, and
globalization as undermining American culture. This popular dissatisfaction needs to be understood and acknowledged.
Washington needs to ensure that the benefits of America’s international engagement are shared by all of our
citizens. But we also need to be clear about the consequences of disengagement. For while it is comforting to believe
that we can wall ourselves off from the ailments of the world, history teaches us that whenever problems abroad are allowed
to fester and grow, sooner or later, they come home to America. Isolationism and retreat do not work; we know
because we have tried them before . We also know, from recent experience, that if America recedes from the global
stage, people in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East will increasingly look elsewhere for
inspiration and guidance – whether to authoritarianism or extremist ideology. In our opinion, such a shift would
be harmful to the interests of those populations, but it would be harmful above all to the interests of the United States, because
our security and our prosperity depend on having friends abroad that share our values – including our belief in
the rule of law, freedom of movement, and access to markets. Neither Russia nor China proclaim the same
loyalty to those principles as we do. Were they to fill a vacuum left by the United States, it could very well mark a
return to a balance of power system, where the world’s major powers competed militarily for territory and
spheres of influence at great human and financial cost. This is a world to which none of us should want to return.
America’s continued global leadership cannot be taken for granted, but a retreat into isolationism is not
preordained. We have an opportunity – and, in our view, an obligation – to defend those aspects of the international system that work in
the twenty-first century, and to adapt those that do not. In doing so, we should acknowledge that the existing order is in
need of revision and refurbishment. The international system was designed for a different era, and it requires a renewal
of purpose and a reform of its structures. Its mission should more clearly extend beyond preventing war in
Europe to include stabilizing other strategic regions that affect our well-being. Its approach should reflect the fact that long-
term stability depends on well-governed states whose leaders are seen as legitimate by their people. And its
structure must be adapted to the realities of a world in which power is more diffuse, so other countries can take
on a greater role commensurate with the contributions they make and the responsibilities they assume. China, Russia, and other
countries should understand that there is a larger place for them at the decision-making table, provided they
are constructive and respect the interests of other nations. And they need to understand that there will be costs if
they do not. For this and other reasons, U.S. military power will remain vital in a renewed international order.
We appreciate this committee’s efforts to ensure that our military remains the best-trained , best-equipped, and
best-led force on earth. Given the variety of threats facing our country, it makes sense to continue upgrading and
enhancing our country’s military capabilities and deterrent power. But we strongly believe that it would be a mistake to
increase defense spending at the expense of other critical investments in national security – especially those in
diplomacy, development, democracy, and peacebuilding. We know from experience that force, and the credible
possibility of its use, are essential to defend our vital interests and keep America safe. But as one of us has said in the past,
force alone can be a blunt instrument, and there are many problems it cannot solve. The military leaders
who so frequently testify before this committee would be the first to tell you that they cannot succeed in their missions
without the vital capabilities that our civilian agencies bring to the table. Gutting these capabilities will put an
unacceptable burden on our men and women in uniform, and would make America less safe. We need to fund these other civilian
elements of American power as robustly as we do the military element. We recognize that government can always be made more efficient and
effective, but the best way to accomplish that goal is to build a budget based on a sound strategy. This administration first needs to take the
time to staff the Departments and agencies, and to develop a national security strategy. As members of the legislative branch, it is your
responsibility to ensure that every dollar is spent wisely, but it also your responsibility to protect our national security institutions from arbitrary
and senseless cuts. The Middle East Strategy Task Force No
region has seen more death and suffering or presented more
challenges to the international order than the Middle East, with outcomes that have frustrated both Democratic and
Republican administrations. The Middle East is likely to be an important test case in the coming years – the region in
which the international order gets rejuvenated for a new era or ceases to function entirely. From 2015 to 2016, we
served as Co-Chairs of the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Strategy Task Force, which sought to understand better the underlying challenges in
the region and to articulate a long-term strategy for meeting them. Our goal was not to develop a new U.S. strategy, but to
understand the role that the U.S. can play in supporting a larger international effort led by the region itself. One of
our initial insights was that we face not just a crisis in the Middle East, but from the Middle East having global impact.
The roots of this crisis lie in a long history of poor governance in many states in the region. The Arab Spring
was a consequence of the dissatisfaction of increasingly connected and empowered citizens with a number of political leaders
who ruled ineptly and often corruptly. Where leaders sought to quash these popular protests by force, the result in most cases was
civil war. The four civil wars raging in the Middle East – in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen – have had
destabilizing consequences for the region and beyond. They have produced the ungoverned spaces and
grievances that have allowed terrorist groups to direct or inspire attacks in the West. They have also created the
greatest worldwide refugee crisis since the Second World War, the devastating human cost of which has been coupled with
profound effects on our own domestic politics and those of Europe. The challenges we face in the Middle East bear some
resemblance to those of post-war Europe. Countries torn apart by war will need to determine the new shape
of their governments, and how those governments interact with their people. The entire state system will need to be
shored up so that countries are less prone to subversion, supported by effective regional institutions to
mediate conflicts and prevent them from spiraling into all-out war. But there are also important differences between the
modern Middle East and post-war Europe. There is no magnanimous victor in the mold of the Allies, with the will and capability to reshape the
region from the outside. New global and political realities mean that no Marshall Plan is in the offing for the rebuilding of the Middle East. The
American people have no appetite for this, and the people of the region, too, are tired of being beholden to outside powers. The Middle East
must chart its own vision for the future. There is reason for hope. The fact is that now, more than any time in the Middle East’s
modern history, the region has significant capabilities and resources of its own to define and work toward this vision
and secure better opportunities for its people. And more than ever, there are also indications that people and some governments
in the Middle East have the will to take on the region’s hard challenges. Although not always evident at first glance, there
are promising developments happening in the Middle East, even in the most unexpected places. In Saudi Arabia, female entrepreneurs are
founding startup companies at a rate three times that of women in Silicon Valley, as they begin to claim their rightful place in Saudi civic life. In
Egypt, the social enterprise Nafham is using technological solutions to address the problem of overcrowding in Egyptian schools. And in Jordan,
Syrian refugees are using innovative 3D printing technology to help develop more affordable prosthetic limb components for friends and
neighbors who bear the physical scars of Bashar Assad’s war on his own people. The region’s vast population of educated youth, commonly
understood to be a liability, can in fact be a tremendous asset. Some governments
are beginning to understand that their
future depends on promoting these efforts and partnering with their people to build a common future. Tunisia is
showing that revolution need not result in either chaos or authoritarianism, but can begin a transition to an
inclusive, democratic future. The UAE has led the way for positive economic and social reforms and Saudi Arabia has now adopted its
own vision for the future. Jordan is making its own efforts. These can be examples for other countries in the region.
Renewed and enhanced American leadership is needed in the Middle East. But not to impose our will
militarily or otherwise. Instead, America has a clear interest in supporting and accelerating the positive changes that
are already happening. The goal of our strategy in the region should be to help the Middle East move from the current
vicious cycle in which it finds itself to a more virtuous one -- one in which the Middle East no longer spawns violence
and refugees, is not a drain on international resources, and does not through its instability and political vacuums
aggravate great power competition. With this goal in mind, US foreign policy toward the Middle East should be informed by a set
of guiding principles that represent the new reality of the region since 2011. First, the old order is gone and is not coming back. Stability will not
be achieved until a new regional order takes shape. The region should assume the principal responsibility for defining this new order, which
should offer the people of the region the prospect of a stable and prosperous future free from both terrorist violence and government
oppression. Second, disengagement is not a practical solution for the West. Disengagement will only allow the
region’s problems to spread and deepen unchecked, creating further threats. Instead, it is in the interest of
the United States and others to help the Middle East achieve a more peaceful vision. But their role must be different
from what it has been in the past. Rather than dictating from the outside how countries should behave, they should support and
facilitate the positive efforts that some people and governments in the region are beginning to take.
2NC Uniqueness
 2NC -- UQ
Packing is limited now because it followed largely conservative records -- Trump’s
nominated almost zero justices across the entire seaboard and most court cases come
from areas without packing.
Copland and Mangual ’19 [James and Rafael; Winter 2019; Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute
and Director of Legal Policy, J.D. and M.B.A. from Yale; Fellow and Deputy Director of Legal Policy, J.D.
from DePaul University; City Journal, “Toward a Less Dangerous Judicial Branch,” https://www.city-
journal.org/html/toward-less-dangerous-judicial-branch-16471.html; RP]
The Trump administration’s early record in appointing jurists should be heartening to conservatives, including the many who supported his
candidacy for just this reason. Still,
the justices being replaced by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had broadly
conservative records; the significance of these lifetime appointees should not be understated, but in the near term, they’re
likely to move the Court’s jurisprudence only on the margins.

Similarly, theadministration’s early successes in winning confirmations to the Courts of Appeals haven’t yet
reshaped many of the critical circuits along the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards, where Democratic senators
opposed to Trump have successfully stalled nominations in their home states (and, in one instance, for Oregon’s Ryan
Bounds, forced the nominee’s withdrawal). Approximately one in six federal appeals court judges today is a Trump appointee, a remarkable
statistic at this early juncture. But these new
judges are concentrated in the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and
Eleventh Circuits—essentially, America’s heartland, where Republican senators predominate and
support for Trump is strongest. Through the end of November, Trump had successfully nominated only two judges
to the massive 29-judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which comprises the nine westernmost U.S. states and
regularly generates the most Supreme Court cases; only one judge to the important 11-judge D.C. Circuit,
the locus of federal administrative-law decisions; one to the 13-judge, New York–based Second Circuit; and
none to the Massachusetts-based First Circuit.

He’s only altered the balance by 14% -- number of judges doesn’t matter in a vacuum
-- his majorities are limited, insubstantial in terms of partisan composition, AND
exclude justices who sit the most cases.
Wheeler ’20 [Russell; January 28; Professor in the Washington College of Law at American University,
Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, citing the Federal Judicial Center Federal Judge
Biographical Directory and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; Brookings Institution, “Judicial
appointments in Trump’s first three years: Myths and realities,”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/01/28/judicial-appointments-in-trumps-first-three-years-
myths-and-realities/; RP] *Tables omitted

In how he compares himself to his predecessors, however, Trump doesn’t stop with raw numbers. He also claims that “percentage-
wise, I blow everybody away except one person . . . George Washington.” Translation: “I’ve filled a greater percentage of
statutory judgeships than all my predecessors except the one who filled all the judgeships created by the first Congress.” Not so:
Table 1 shows that at this point, the 21% of statutory judgeships he has filled ranks behind Kennedy-Johnson and
Nixon, Carter, and Clinton. Party-of-Appointing-President Balance Table 2 shows that Trump has had a significant but
not revolutionary impact on the composition of the courts of appeals. When Trump took office,
Republican-appointed circuit judges occupied 40% of the 179 statutory judgeships. Today they occupy 54%.
When he took office, Republican appointees were a majority of the active-status judges on four appellate courts—those
of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th circuits. Trump has flipped three others—the 2d, 3rd, and 11th. As to the conservatives’ bete noir—the 9th
circuit’s court of appeals—the Democratic-appointee majority has gone from 18-7 (with four vacancies) to a thin 16-13. Still, Trump loyalists’
assertions that he is reshaping the federal judiciary need context. He has strengthened Republican-appointee
majorities on four courts, and achieved thin Republican-appointee majorities on three others. And these figures don’t
include senior judges and visiting judges, who sit on the randomly selected, three-judge panels that decide
almost all cases. And while party-of-appointing-president is one of the best predictors of judicial decisions, it’s still not very precise.

Trump is slowing court appointments because of blue state opposition now and lack
of incentive
Alder 2-11 – reporter at Bloomberg Law (Madison, "Blue States Create Hurdle for Trump’s 2020 Judicial
Appointments," No Publication, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/blue-states-create-
hurdle-for-trumps-2020-judicial-appointments 2-11-2020)// gcd

President Donald Trump’s push to reshape the federal judiciary with conservatives is likely to slow in
2020 as most of the remaining vacancies are in California and other blue states. Almost 84% of the nearly 80
current and expected district court vacancies are in states with at least one Democratic senator and fully 53 are in blue states, or states with
two Democratic senators, according to Bloomberg Law analysis of Federal Judicial Center data. That means this
year—an election year
when there’s already much less time to get things done in the bitterly divided chamber with a thir d of seats
up for election in November—the White House will have to work with Democratic senators to get judges
confirmed that they can agree on or possibly accept a lower yield on one of Trump’s most successful priorities. In the
short term, however, there’s no slowing down for the Republican-led Senate. Minutes after lawmakers acquitted Trump on two articles of
impeachment Feb. 5, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) reignited judicial nominations work. He teed up five nominees for votes this
week. If they’re confirmed, it will leave the White House and its Republican Senate allies with just one conservative appeals court seat and 10
red-state district court vacancies that are either current or anticipated. Most of the judges Trump appointed in his first three years in office
were states friendly to Republicans. The makeup of the remaining vacancies could play into Democrats’ hands.
Senators still have a say over who gets nominated to district, or trial, courts in their state, and Democrats could
leverage that custom during an election year with the prospect of more favorable nominees on the horizon . “If the
Democratic senators think they have a chance at taking back the White House, there’s less incentive to approve any of
Trump’s judges, particularly if Trump is not working with them to find candidates that are amenable to them,” said Rorie Solberg, a
political science professor at Oregon State University who researches and writes about judicial nominations.
 2NC -- UQ -- Appellate Courts
Dems have control of appelate courts by a slim margin
Hurley 18 – reuters reporter (Lawreence, "Trump chips away at liberal U.S. appeals court majorities,"
U.S., https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-judges/trump-chips-away-at-liberal-u-s-
appeals-court-majorities-idUSKCN1M025I , 9-20-2018)/ gcd

Only four of the 13 federal appeals courts currently have more Republican-appointed judges than
Democratic selections. The two appellate courts closest to shifting to Republican-appointed majorities are the Atlanta-
based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump
already has made three appointments to the 11th Circuit, leaving it with a 6-6 split between Democratic and Republican appointees. The 3rd
Circuit, to which Trump has made one appointment, now has a 7-5 Democratic-appointee majority, with two vacancies for Trump to fill.
Should further vacancies open up on those courts , Trump’s appointees would tip the ideological
balance. The ideological “flipping” of a judicial circuit , where cases typically are decided by panels of three judges, can
have a direct impact on how cases are decided and new legal precedents established. Cases before circuit courts span a wide
range of issues, from hot-button topics such as abortion, gay rights and the death penalty to voting rights, regulatory and business
disputes, employment law and the environment.
 2NC -- UQ -- Brink
We’re at the brink -- another Trump push ensures he finally flips the remaining lower
courts.
Mystal ’19 [Elie; July 15; Justice correspondent, J.D. from Harvard University; The Nation, “Donald
Trump and the Plot to Take Over the Courts,” https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/trump-
mcconnel-court-judges-plot/; RP]

The Federalist Society and McConnell want the same thing: the supremacy of the Republican political
agenda. And now they’ve almost won. We stand on the brink of a precipice. In March, Trump finally flipped
the critical Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware), achieving a majority of judges
appointed by Republicans instead of Democrats. In other regions, he’s made the GOP-controlled circuit courts even
more conservative. The Republicans, of course, already control the Supreme Court. If Trump wins a second term, the
conservative Anschluss of the lower courts will be complete. And these courts are incredibly important.
The Supreme Court heard only about 70 cases during its 2018–19 term, out of nearly 7,000 that are filed annually for
potential review. For all the cases that are not taken up by the Supreme Court—the vast majority—these lower
courts serve as the final arbiter.
 2NC -- UQ -- Calabresi
The Calabresi plan won’t be enacted.
Rosenberg ’17 [Paul; December 3; Columnist, citing political analysts; Salon, “GOP's court-packing
spree: It's only the beginning,” https://www.salon.com/2017/12/03/gops-court-packing-spree-its-only-
the-beginning/; RP]

Yale Law School’s Jack Balkin takes a similar view, at his Balkinization blog, where Primus is also a contributor. He sees
little
likelihood of Calabresi’s plan being enacted. “I think that we should consider Calabresi's memo for
what it is — a dream of a better world,” he writes, adding that it should be examined as Freud would, to make sense of
the “predicaments, anxieties, and concerns” that it expresses — especially the stark contrast between the GOP’s
dominant formal power and its decaying power as a movement: Indeed, the Republican Party turned to
Donald Trump in 2016 precisely because the regime's national coalition is decaying. Trump is both a
symptom of decay and an agent of decay. In Stephen Skowronek's terms, Trump is a disjunctive president, brought on
board to rejuvenate a dying coalition but who actually furthers its unraveling. This profound weakness is why, even
with complete control of the federal government, the party has had more trouble than it should in
passing legislation. Of course, nobody knows when the Reagan regime will actually end. ... Even so, as the regime decays,
factionalism and radicalism undermine the party's coalition and make even the simplest tasks
difficult.
 2NC -- UQ -- Districts
He's neglected district courts -- those are the backbone of the judicial system AND key
to our impact.
Wheeler ’20 [Russell; January 28; Professor in the Washington College of Law at American University,
Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, citing the Federal Judicial Center Federal Judge
Biographical Directory and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; Brookings Institution, “Judicial
appointments in Trump’s first three years: Myths and realities,”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/01/28/judicial-appointments-in-trumps-first-three-years-
myths-and-realities/; RP] *Tables omitted

What about the district courts? The

federal district courts, with their 673 statutorily authorized judgeships, are in many ways
the backbone of the federal judicial system. Full-blown trials are now rare, but district judges decide
motions to dispose of cases without trial, and oversee the pretrial processes in which cases get resolved. Filling district
vacancies is the priority of many lawyers and those whom they represent—commercial interests, law
enforcement officials, criminal defendants, civil rights advocates and others. The Trump administration and its
Senate allies, however, have given top priority to filling appellate vacancies, perhaps on the somewhat shaky
view that the appellate courts make law that binds all judges in the respective circuits. Trump inherited large numbers of circuit
and district vacancies, thanks in large part to Senate Republicans’ unprecedentedly miniscule number of confirmations in the final two years of
the Obama presidency. Table 5 shows vacancies during presidencies from Reagan to Trump—those in January of the first year and those in
January of the fourth year—and the percentage increase or decrease. For the second Bush,Clinton, and Reagan administrations,
the decline in district vacancies outpaced the decline in appellate vacancies. Under Trump appellate vacancies fell
by 94%, but district court vacancies declined by only 17%. Moreover, as recently as early December 2019, there
were 87 district vacancies (not 71), an increase over the Inauguration Day figure. It appears that the Senate got
serious about confirming district judges only when it essentially ran out of appellate nominees to confirm. Circuit
vacancies filled faster than district vacancies The administration and the Senate took more time to propose nominees to
fill district court vacancies than court of appeals vacancies, and more time to approve district court nominees than
to approve circuit nominees. As in previous administrations, delay in submitting nominees was greater in states with opposite-party
senators, but the greater delay in confirming such nominees (at least during the first three years) is a departure from practice under previous
administrations.
 2NC -- UQ -- Linear
It's linear -- every Trump judge is worse.
McCarthy ’20 [Tom; April 28; National affairs correspondent, citing Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at
the Brookings Institution; The Guardian, “Trump's judges: a revolution to create a new conservative
America,” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/28/donald-trump-judges-create-new-
conservative-america-republicans; RP]

“The increase in the number of Trump judges means you have more and more cases where you might very
well have two Trump judges in the majority” on a three-person panel, said Elliott Mincberg, a senior fellow at PFAW. “And that’s
happening more and more.” Meanwhile traditionally more conservative circuits, such as the New Orleans-based fifth circuit,
have taken a noticeably hardline turn under Trump judges (the fifth circuit has five out of 17, with one vacancy about to
be filled by a sixth Trump nominee). In December, a Trump judge on the court joined a two-to-one majority attacking Obama’s healthcare law,
ruling that the former “individual mandate” to carry health insurance was unconstitutional. Other judges on the court have joined controversial
opinions on border wall construction, voting rights and fair housing.
 2NC -- UQ -- Majorities
He's barely replaced Democratic appointees and they retain a majority -- vacancies
have held him in check thus far.
Wheeler ’20 [Russell; January 28; Professor in the Washington College of Law at American University,
Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, citing the Federal Judicial Center Federal Judge
Biographical Directory and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; Brookings Institution, “Judicial
appointments in Trump’s first three years: Myths and realities,”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/01/28/judicial-appointments-in-trumps-first-three-years-
myths-and-realities/; RP] *Tables omitted
Whom has he replaced?

A president’s ability to reshape the courts depends partly on factors beyond the president’s control—
including the nature of the available vacancies. Trump might have shifted the court-of-appeals balance more
decisively had he been able to replace more Democratic appointees, but circuit vacancies haven’t
accommodated him. Table 4a shows that less than two-fifths of his circuit judge appointees replaced
Democratic appointees. By contrast, at this early fourth-year point, over half of Obama’s appointees replaced
judges appointed by Republican presidents. In contrast to the Democratic appointee minority status on the courts of appeals,
Democratic appointees remain a majority (317 or 53 percent of the 602 active-status district judges) sitting in late
January. Trump has mainly replaced Republican-appointed district judges. In fact, Table 4b shows that at this point, most
recent presidents have mainly replaced district judges appointed by their same-party predecessors, although all but Obama and Trump were
also able to fill some newly created seats.

We won’t see current effects for five years, circuit panels mitigate the impact, and the
majority of Trump appointees don’t change the balance.
McCarthy ’20 [Tom; April 28; National affairs correspondent, citing Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at
the Brookings Institution; The Guardian, “Trump's judges: a revolution to create a new conservative
America,” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/28/donald-trump-judges-create-new-
conservative-america-republicans; RP]

Experts caution that many Trump appointees are very recent arrivals on the bench and the extent to
which they have shifted or will shift the law of the land won’t be clear for five years or more. Most circuit court
rulings are made by panels of three judges selected from each court’s total judges pool, averaging 13 in
number, and Trump judges don’t rule on every case. Likewise, the addition of a Trump judge to a court does not
necessarily change its overall balance. In fact, a 63% majority of Trump judges replaced judges who had been
appointed by previous Republican presidents, according to analysis by Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Brookings
Institute. “I think it’s just a little early to begin making determined judgments about how much things have
changed on the courts of appeals,” Wheeler said.
 2NC -- UQ -- Stats
He's filled approximately twenty percent of the appeals courts and overall judiciary --
our link evidence says that figure could spike.
Mystal ’19 [Elie; July 15; Justice correspondent, J.D. from Harvard University; The Nation, “Donald
Trump and the Plot to Take Over the Courts,” https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/trump-
mcconnel-court-judges-plot/; RP]

But Trump’s Court—the collection of judges and justices now swarming our judicial system, nominated and confirmed to
lifetime appointments on his recommendation—will linger, like an infected wound poisoning the body politic even after the
initial injury has scabbed over. As of this writing, the Trump administration has had 123 federal judges confirmed,
including 41 to the federal courts of appeal—the circuit courts just one rung below the Supreme Court. By comparison, at this
point in his presidency, Barack Obama had pushed only 19 circuit-court judges through to confirmation. Trump’s appointees now
account for some 14 percent of the federal judiciary and more than 22 percent of the judges on the nation’s
courts of appeal—and he has been in office for just two and a half years. Many of Trump’s other offenses could be overturned by a new
president with the stroke of a pen. Trump’s Court will remain as his legacy.

Trump’s only average in court packing AND the trend’s not predicted to increase.
Wheeler ’20 [Russell; May 5; Professor in the Washington College of Law at American University, Ph.D.
in Political Science from the University of Chicago, citing the Federal Judicial Center’s Federal Judicial
Biographical Database; Brookings Institute, “How close is President Trump to his goal of record-setting
judicial appointments?” https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/05/05/how-close-is-president-
trump-to-his-goal-of-record-setting-judicial-appointments/; RP] *Tables omitted

Trump frames judicial confirmations as a contest with his predecessors, consistent with his “presidency-as-reality-television” approach. His
two metrics are, first, number of judges appointed. Of recent presidents, at this point he trails only Jimmy Carter. The
other metric is the percentage they represent of all statutory judgeships. On that measure, despite his claim that
“percentagewise, I blow everybody away except one person . . . George Washington,” he falls in the middle of the pack. As
suggested below, he will probably be in the same comparative position on Inauguration Day 2021.

As a preliminary aside, both

metrics depend on factors largely beyond presidential control, namely the availability of
vacancies and a compliant Senate. Carter benefitted from a 1978 law creating 152 additional vacancies and substantial Senate
majorities at a time that confirmations were routine. Trump inherited 103 vacancies (more than any recent predecessor but President Clinton’s
109) thanks largely to McConnell’s effectively shutting down confirmations in 2015-16 under President Obama. Trump’s Senate majority is slim
but exceedingly compliant.
 2NC -- UQ -- AT: Bostock
Bostock is neg uniqueness -- it increases conservative legitimacy by conveying a
balanced swing vote -- BUT -- that’s dependent on continued conservative rulings
down the line.
Harris ’20 [Mary; June 16; Reporter, citing Mark Stern, a judicial analyst with a J.D. from Georgetown
University; Slate, “Why Conservative Justices Gave Progressives a Victory,” https://slate.com/news-and-
politics/2020/06/supreme-court-lgbtq-bostock-abortion-trump-tax-cfpb.html; RP]

At the beginning of this term, you came on the show and literally said, “Iam here to terrify you and hopefully make you extremely
afraid of the judiciary for the rest of your life.” Does a decision like this change that opinion? Oh, no. In some
ways, it actually frightens me even more. Why? Roberts and Gorsuch have just given themselves a huge amount
of political capital. Remember, the court doesn’t have its own standing army to enforce its decisions. It relies, basically, on
magic: our belief in its institutional legitimacy to have any power at all. If the court had only issued a ton
of conservative opinions this term—if the court had said no to abortion, no to DACA, no to the CFPB, just totally
crashed through all of these liberal projects—I think that court packing would be a real conversation on this campaign trail, and I
think Joe Biden would be forced to take a position on it. And I think you would see a lot of liberals saying, we’re not even
paying attention to the court because it’s illegitimate. But instead, you have a day of everybody on the
left celebrating the Supreme Court and Gorsuch and Roberts. That gives both of them a huge amount of cover to
erode Roe v. Wade, to let Trump hide his financial records and deport Dreamers, to gut the independence of the CFPB. Then they can still turn
around and say, We’re impartial and independent and you should respect our decisions because
sometimes we swing left. This is a classic trick. This is what Roberts has been doing for a long time. I don’t
think it should cheapen the victory for LGBTQ rights, but it should put everyone on high alert for some pretty far-right
decisions that may be coming down the pipeline.

No thumpers -- it was straightforward conservatism and adhered to core textualist

principles -- boosts credibility for conservative jurists.
Harris ’20 [Mary; June 16; Reporter, citing Mark Stern, a judicial analyst with a J.D. from Georgetown
University; Slate, “Why Conservative Justices Gave Progressives a Victory,” https://slate.com/news-and-
politics/2020/06/supreme-court-lgbtq-bostock-abortion-trump-tax-cfpb.html; RP]
On Monday, the Supreme Court made a historic decision in the case Bostock v. Clayton County, declaring it illegal to discriminate against gay
and transgender people in the workplace. The opinion was written by one of the five conservative justices: Neil Gorsuch, the first one appointed
by President Donald Trump. This
ruling may have seemed unexpected, but there are several factors at play
here: the conservatives’ battle over ideology vs. principle, the straightforward nature of the cases at hand,
and the court’s upcoming docket. It’s for these very reasons that we should expect the court
to also make some sweeping hard-right decisions over the course of this term.

On Tuesday’s episode of What Next, I spoke with Mark Joseph Stern, who covers courts and the law for Slate, about how this conservative
Supreme Court ended up handing a win
to transgender and gay Americans—and why it may clear the way for
progressives to face some losses in the next few weeks. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Mary Harris: This decision consisted of a few cases that were ruled on together. Can you refresh our memories?

Mark Joseph Stern: In one of them, there was a gay skydiver—who is now dead and whose estate carried the case forward—who was
essentially fired for being gay and said, That’s federal sex discrimination, you’re taking my sex into account. The other case was brought by
Gerald Bostock, who worked for Clayton County, Georgia, as a child welfare advocate and was fired for being gay after joining a gay softball
league. The final case involves Aimee Stephens, who died recently. She was a transgender woman who worked at a funeral home and was fired
for being trans.

The facts of the cases are all really simple. Gorsuch didn’t even spend that much time on them. These are just cut-and-
dry examples of people who were good at their jobs and weren’t causing any problems but happened to be LGBTQ and
got fired for it. These are good test cases because there are no complications here. It’s just: Is this or is this not a
form of sex discrimination?

The argument Gorsuch made was really, really simple. It was the same argument made by the lower
courts, I believe: that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers sexual orientation and gender preference.
No one here is claiming that sex literally means sexual orientation. What they’re saying is when you discriminate against a gay employee, you
are punishing them for having a partner or multiple romantic partners of the same sex. You can’t take the employee’s sex out of that equation.
It’s very similar, if not even more straightforward, when an employer discriminates against a trans worker. That employer is punishing the
worker for failing to conform to the sex that they were assigned at birth. The employer is basically thinking about nothing but their sex. And so
what Gorsuch says is, We keep using this word over and over again to describe what’s going on here, so it seems pretty clear that you can’t take
sex out of the equation. That forces us to acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act already protects LGBTQ people from employment
discrimination.

You wrote that this case was a “hack test” because it

was a challenge to the conservative justices to stick by their
principles, even when that would mean a liberal outcome. Can you explain that a little bit?

The conservative justices, to varying degrees, espouse a particular method of judicial interpretation called textualism. It really
just means that you look at the text of the law. The idea is, we aren’t looking at legislative intent, we aren’t
looking at legislative history, we aren’t going back and trying to figure out what Congress may or may not have wanted this law to mean—
we are looking at the words Congress enacted into law, and that’s it.

This case presented a pretty straightforward application of textualism. What does it mean to discriminate because of
sex? Can you discriminate in these ways without taking sex into account? If you can’t, then this kind of discrimination is illegal. Simple as that. If
you want to argue the other side of this case, if you want to try to argue against LGBTQ rights, you really have to go beyond the text and start
looking at what Congress meant when it passed this law in 1964. You have to try to divine the mental processes of lawmakers as they drafted
and took votes on this law.

Which is kind of what Alito does in his dissent.

It’s exactly what he does. It’s incredibly hypocritical because he constantly says we are not supposed to be looking at legislative history, we are
not supposed to be trying to guess what Congress would have wanted, we’re only supposed to apply the text. And yet, when it turns out the
text helps gender and sexual minorities, Alito turns around and says, never mind, no more textualism. When the stakes are this high, he’ll throw
all of these terms out that he’d normally spurn and use them to build his way to an anti-LGBTQ conclusion that strays really far from the actual
text of the law.

John Roberts also was part of the majority opinion here. He and Gorsuch stood their ground, and you gave
them credit for that. Were you surprised that this was the outcome, that these two conservative justices made this decision?

It mirrored Scalia’s liberal decisions and faithfully channeled textualism.

Schacter ’20 [Jane; June 15; Professor of Law at Stanford University; Stanford Law School, “Bostock and
Changes of the Guard at the Supreme Court,” https://law.stanford.edu/2020/06/15/bostock-and-
changes-of-the-guard-at-the-supreme-court/; RP]
Gorsuch and Scalia

One of the
most salient features of Justice Scalia’s tenure on the Court was the debate he ignited about how to
read statutes. Since the late 1980s, statutory interpretation has been a flashpoint for debate on the high court,
with proponents of traditional “intentionalism” and “purposivism” dueling with Scalia’s preferred
“textualism.” The traditional approach that Justice Scalia rejected focused not only on what Congress wrote in the text of a law, but also
what it intended. This inquiry was often aided by a close review of a law’s legislative history, such as committee reports and legislative debates
about the bill. Scalia rejected this methodology, arguing that the Court should focus on the ordinary meaning of the text, not, more broadly, on
what legislators may have intended or wanted to accomplish. And he
saw virtually no legitimate role for legislative history,
which is not voted on and which he thought was too easy to abuse. There can be no question that Scalia
changed statutory interpretation at the Court, elevating his preferred textualism. While Justice Kagan’s claim that
“we are all textualists now” is too sweeping, it is certainly true that briefs and legal advocacy at the Court
has become much more oriented to text and less focused on legislative history or other indicia of legislative intent.

In Bostock, Justice Gorsuch’s

insistent focus on the meaning of the words “because of sex” faithfully
channels Scalia’s approach. The Bostock defendants and dissenters vigorously argued that Congress in 1964
simply could not have meant to address the problem of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender
identity. Like a faithful textualist, though, Justice Gorsuch did not contest this point; he merely noted that
what Congress might have intended or expected is simply not relevant. What matters, he argued, is that an employer “who fires
an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different
sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.” The argument about congressional
wishes in 1964, in other words, reeks of exactly the intentionalism that Scalia excoriated. Justice Alito’s dissent
tried to fight off that conclusion by restating in textualist terms the importance of what Congress thought in 1964. But he decisively lost
the argument and, at the end of the day, was left accusing Gorsuch of the very “judicial activism” that Scalia had
long attached to intentionalism.

Interestingly, Scalia
himself had a Bostock-like moment in 1998 in Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Services, when he
surprised many observers by using his textualist principles to read Title VII to cover as sex discrimination claims
of men sexually harassing other men at work. Like Oncale, Bostock elevated the text over the probable purpose or
expectations of the law’s drafters and did so on its way to a rights-expanding result. With today’s decision, Justice
Gorsuch has firmly established himself as Scalia’s heir in the realm of statutory interpretation. That
does not necessarily mean Justice Scalia would have voted as Gorsuch (or Chief Justice Roberts) did today. Given Scalia’s aggressive social
conservatism, I suspect he would not have done so. What it does mean is that Justice Gorsuch has taken the wheel for the textualists and will
play the pivotal role in developing the next generation of textualism. It should be fascinating to watch the development of Textualism 2.0.

It was judicial restraint -- not activism.

Schacter ’20 [Jane; June 15; Professor of Law at Stanford University; Stanford Law School, “Bostock and
Changes of the Guard at the Supreme Court,” https://law.stanford.edu/2020/06/15/bostock-and-
changes-of-the-guard-at-the-supreme-court/; RP]

Justice Gorsuch is certainly respectful of LGBT persons in Bostock, but his opinion is insistently doctrinal and precisely
analytical. As his opinions often do, it features lively prose and creative analogies. But it conspicuously eschews broad rhetoric
about discrimination, and does so as part of the key logic of the opinion. While Justice Kennedy’s opinions focused
on claims about the group of gay people and the unfairness of historical discrimination against them and their families, Justice Gorsuch
frames his opinion in terms of discrimination against individual employees. In fact, the individual employee—and
not the group “gay and lesbian” or “transgender”—is the relevant unit of analysis in Bostock. This focus allows Gorsuch to fend
off claims by dissenters that Congress in 1964 was not thinking about addressing discrimination against
groups that were either harshly stigmatized or largely invisible in 1964. In the counterfactual world in which Justice Kennedy
was still on the Court and wrote Bostock, the opinion would surely canvass the harms suffered by LGBT employees and emphasize why
employment protections are needed. The idea of employees’ dignity would likely make an appearance. The statutory text would be
far less the star of the show. The opinion would likely occasion a renewed debate about the mode of Justice Kennedy’s
jurisprudence. The fact that Bostock is reasoned in such starkly different terms and comes from the pen of a justice not
associated with support for LGBT rights should significantly recast the lines of debate. True, the dissenters
rehearse standard–if tired–claims of judicial activism, but the fact that they are resisted by Justice Gorsuch in his own
logic of judicial restraint should open new lines of inquiry.
 2NC -- UQ -- AT: DACA
DACA was a conservative victory -- it protected the legal authority to end the program
Cardona ’20 [Maria; June 21; Democratic strategist and co-chair of the Democratic National
Committee’s rules and bylaws committee for the party’s 2020 convention; The Hill, “Supreme Court
DACA decision a win for Trump,” https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/503794-supreme-court-daca-
decision-a-win-for-trump; RP]

The Supreme Court’s decision last week on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is seen as a huge
political loss for President Trump. It is anything but. The high court’s decision allows immigrants who have
received DACA status, sometimes referred to as “Dreamers,” to stay in the country safely without threat of deportation. But
that protection remains temporary. The Supreme Court provided a Band-Aid that can be abruptly
ripped off at any minute, exposing the fear, anxiety and danger these residents have had to live with for so long. The
court simply declared that Trump failed to end DACA in the correct manner, not that he couldn’t end it. “That
failure was arbitrary and capricious in violation” of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. That means
Trump has the legal authority to end the program but that he had technically gone about doing it in the wrong
way. The court gave Trump a road map to do it correctly next time around. And Trump seems intent on
following it. At his sparsely attended campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla., on Saturday night, Trump told the truth about DACA.
“People don't understand, but we actually won on DACA yesterday,” he told rallygoers. “We actually won, because
[the court] basically said, ‘You won, but you have to come back and redo it.’” “So we're refiling it,” Trump continued.
“Most people would say that we lost. We didn't lose. We're gonna refile it.” Trump’s words were meant to buoy
the spirits of his supporters, who have been disillusioned with a recent stream of Trump losses — at the Supreme
Court, his continued mishandling of COVID-19, the John Bolton book revelations and his tumbling poll numbers. Trump’s assurance that he will
continue to try to end DACA is a nod to his base, which wants to rid the country of all undocumented immigrants. But is it a politically smart
move to make? Will Trump and his advisers immediately try again to deport more than 700,000 “Dreamers” so close to the election? I think it
would backfire. Die-hard Trump supporters would love it if he ended DACA, but he could lose less enthusiastic supporters and independents. An
overwhelming majority of Americans — 74 percent, according to one poll — support letting the “Dreamers” stay and work, study or serve in the
military legally. This includes 64 percent of Trump supporters. These numbers suggest “Dreamers” could be the glue of a coalition that brings
together both sides to find a real solution. That is what DACA recipients and this country deserve. The politically brilliant move for Trump would
be immediately to offer legislation that would give “Dreamers” permanent legal status with a pathway to citizenship. But he won’t. He is too
tied to his anti-immigrant base. Instead, he
will resort to xenophobic immigrant bashing in an attempt to maximize
turnout among his voter base. The Supreme Court’s DACA decision allows Trump to do just that. In that
sense, it is a win for him, and a huge loss for the peace of mind of “Dreamers.” The only way to protect and honor
“Dreamers” and the only country many of them have ever known and loved is to vote Donald Trump out of office in November.

DACA was a procedural, administrative law case that’s equally likely to oppose
progressive goals in the future.
Robinson ’20 [Nathan; June 19; Editor of Current Affairs; The Guardian, “Don't be fooled. The US
supreme court hasn't suddenly become leftwing,”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/19/us-supreme-court-leftwing-daca-lgbt-
gorsuch-roberts; RP]

In the Daca case, too, there is more going on than simply “John Roberts being favorably disposed toward immigrants.” Roberts himself
wrote in his opinion that the decision had nothing to do with the merits or justice of Daca, but was purely about
a procedural issue: “We do not decide whether Daca or its rescission are sound policies… We address only whether the agency complied
with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.” Of course, judges always say that what they’re doing
isn’t political, even when it is, but there
are justices with fetishes for procedural regularity, whose loyalty to the
process far exceeds their loyalty to any kind of “justice” or political value. The ostensible issue in the Daca case was
whether, under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Trump administration’s had undergone the proper process for
presenting its justifications for ending the program, and whether the administration’s judgments about Daca’s legality had undergone
the correct amount of deliberation. This is a rather dull question of administrative law, and the issues being argued about
have very little to do with whether or not Daca is a good thing. Of course, it could be that John Robert’s subconscious
sympathies for immigrants are influencing his judgment on the administrative law question. But it could also be that they aren’t, and that he’s
genuinely committed to ensuring that executive branch agencies undergo a particular series of steps in order to make or rescind new rules. If
that’s the case, under a Democratic administration, progressives might find that Roberts
proves just as much an obstacle to the
accomplishment of progressive goals as he is currently proving to the accomplishment of Trump’s goals. The law that is
applied in our favor one day will be applied against us the next.

It spared Republicans from having to pass replacement legislation AND underscored

Robert’s role as a balancer.
Totenberg ’20 [Nina; June 18; Award-winning legal affairs correspondent, honored seven times by the
American Bar Association; NPR, “Supreme Court Rules For DREAMers, Against Trump,”
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-upholds-daca-in-blow-to-trump-
administration; RP]

Politically, Thursday's decision played out as expected, with anti-immigration groups condemning the decision and DACA
recipients jubilant and relieved. But aside from the president, lots of Republicans are relieved as well. If Thursday's decision
had gone the other way, the pressure on congressional Republicans to pass legislation protecting the DREAMers
would have been intense. DACA is an astonishingly popular program, with recent polls showing up to 85%
support among Democratic and independent voters, and huge majorities among Republican voters as well. Indeed, 200 major
corporations filed briefs in the Supreme Court supporting the DACA recipients. Among them was Microsoft, which was a plaintiff in one of the
cases that made it to the Supreme Court, and its president, Brad Smith. "There are more than 30,000 DACA registrants working in the health
space alone. We've needed these people more than we do today," he said. "Every time I meet with them, I have the same reaction. We are
lucky as a country to have them." Not all DACA critics are against the substance of DACA. Instead, some oppose the fact that Obama, frustrated
with congressional inaction, put the program into effect unilaterally through executive order. Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute warns of
unforeseen consequences if presidents can create new programs that future administrations will struggle to unwind. "This raises profound
issues of executive power and in effect sets out a ratchet whereby statutory changes can be enacted by presidential executive order but can
only be rescinded through jumping through various administrative law hoops," he said. At the end of the day, the man of the
hour is Chief Justice Roberts. Amid a politicized and polarized society, he has repeatedly tried to portray the
court as apolitical. He sees the growth of organizations on the hard right like the Judicial Crisis Network, and on the hard left like
Demand Justice, each trying to stack the court with like-minded justices or pack the court by expanding the number of justices. "What these
decisions underscore is we have a chief justice who's plainly working hard to demonstrate to the American people
that the court, unlike the other two branches, is doing its job and doing its best," said Harvard Law School
professor Richard Lazarus, who has known the chief justice for decades. "He wants the American people to believe there is a
thing called law and justice. His job is to apply it."
 2NC -- UQ -- AT: Liberal Court
The court is fundamentally conservative -- recent “progressive” rulings were products
of luck and textualism.
Robinson ’20 [Nathan; June 19; Editor of Current Affairs; The Guardian, “Don't be fooled. The US
supreme court hasn't suddenly become leftwing,”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/19/us-supreme-court-leftwing-daca-lgbt-
gorsuch-roberts; RP] *Images omitted

No, of course not. Because while the court is extremely political, it’s not completely political, and sometimes
judges do in fact make rulings for reasons other than where they stand on the left-right spectrum. And that’s
important, because it means we shouldn’t really think of the court as having made “progressive decisions” at all.
They were rulings that had progressive outcomes. But the justices’ politics haven’t changed, and we can’t
assume there is any kind of pattern here. The court is still fundamentally conservative, and these
rulings are more the product of luck than any kind of shift in the “hearts and minds” of Neil Gorsuch and John
Roberts. Do not be surprised if next year, they rule in ways that hurt LGBTQ+ people and immigrants just as much as this week’s rulings have
helped them. We can celebrate the outcome, but we certainly shouldn’t treat Roberts and Gorsuch as champions of the rights of the
oppressed. To think about what the decisions imply about the court itself, it’s
helpful to understand the justices’ actual
reasoning in each case. In Bostock, Gorsuch’s reasoning was very simple: the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sex, and while it does not specifically prohibit discriminating against people for being LGBTQ+, in practice there is
no way to discriminate against a person for being LGBTQ+ without discriminating against their sex. After all, if I fire a man for being attracted to
men, but I would not fire a woman for being attracted to men, what is making the difference in my conduct? The sex of the employee. Gorsuch
said that it doesn’t matter whether Congress intended to prohibit discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, because the thing they did prohibit
covers acts of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination. It’s very straightforward reasoning. It’s also quite “conservative”, in the sense that
Gorsuch is applying a form of judicial interpretation usually associated with conservatives, most notably Antonin
Scalia. Scalia was an advocate of textualism, meaning that the words of a statute matter far more than what
the lawmakers writing it intended for it to do. If applying the law in its most literal form has a negative unintended consequence, tough
luck. Gorsuch felt that a consistent application of textualism required ruling in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. But if Gorsuch’s vote resulted
from his highly literal interpretive theory, there’s no reason to expect he will be progressive in cases involving
LGBTQ+ people more generally. The Human Rights Campaign opposed Gorsuch’s confirmation originally citing worrying past decisions,
and while there is evidence that he is not personally homophobic, if the “textualist” reading of a statute goes against LGBTQ+ people next time,
they are unlikely to find Gorsuch so friendly to the cause.

The religious schools ruling confirms Trump’s hope that the court’s conservative
majority is working in his favor
Ariane De Vogue and Devan Cole 6/30, 6/30/2020, "Supreme Court opens door to state funding for
religious schools," CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics/espinoza-montana-religious-
schools-scholarship-supreme-court/index.html

The ruling comes as the supporters of religious liberty, including the Trump administration, have hoped
the court's solidified conservative majority would emphasize that the Constitution's Free Exercise
clause requires neutrality toward religion. Three low-income mothers had sought to use the funds from a state initiative toward
their kids' religious education. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos called the ruling a "historic victory for America's students
and all those who believe in fundamental fairness and freedom." Roberts' opinion on Tuesday reflects his traditional
conservative instincts on religious dilemmas and breaks his recent pattern of his joining the court's four liberals -- all of whom
dissented on Tuesday -- on social policy issues. It builds on Roberts' prior decisions permitting greater government
involvement with religion under the First Amendment, which says government "shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It was an ultraconservative marriage between church and state---overturns precedent

and cements the perception of court ideological extremity
Valerie Strauss 6/30, Reporter for the Washington Post, 6-30-2020, "Perspective,"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/06/30/how-supreme-courts-decision-religious-
schools-just-eroded-separation-between-church-state/

When providing a public benefit (in that case, state grants for playground resurfacing), the state cannot make religious
status an impediment to receipt of that benefit — at least where the benefit is not directly supporting religious practice.

Even from this conservative court, the Trinity Lutheran decision was a bit of a surprise. Earlier, in 2004,
in a case called Locke v. Davey in which the majority opinion was written by the very conservative Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist, the court found no constitutional impediment to a state prohibiting a college
scholarship from being used directly to support religious practice, by excluding students pursuing a “degree in
devotional theology.”

With those key precedents, the court today decided a case involving a neo-voucher law that had been adopted
in Montana. The law used tax credits to create a funding mechanism for small vouchers (about $500 each) to help pay for private school tuition.
Because the Montana state constitution includes a “no aid” clause that prohibits direct or indirect state support for church-controlled schools,
the Montana Department of Revenue only allowed the law to go forward on the condition that religious schools be excluded.

A lawsuit called Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue challenged that ruling and made its way to that state’s
Supreme Court.
That court struck
down the entire neo-voucher law, thus avoiding the possibility of anti-religious
discrimination raised in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer , while also avoiding a violation of the Montana constitution. That
should have ended the matter, but the U.S. Supreme Court decided to weigh in.

Before discussing the court’s decision in the Espinoza case, it’s important to step back and consider the unusual ideological
extremity of the current Supreme Court. The court was designed as a moderating institution. One fundamental reason for this is
that the more-extreme views of any single justice typically will have only a minimal impact on the court’s final decision. The court will only take
the law as far as the “fifth vote” or “swing vote.” If four justices wanted, for instance, to declare all affirmative action programs
unconstitutional, but the fifth vote in that case wanted to allow limited affirmative action programs under narrow circumstances, then the latter
becomes the new legal standard.

The court also is designed to be somewhat insulated from political pressures, with justices appointed for life. One result is that presidents can
ultimately be surprised by their appointments. We saw this, for instance, with Eisenhower appointee Justice William J. Brennan Jr. ending up to
the left of Kennedy appointee Justice Byron R. White.

Yet the
Supreme Court has now become almost as ideologically predictable as the Congress. And the
ideological pendulum has become a one-way bulldozer — a process that started during the Nixon administration. The so-
called swing justice went from Lewis F. Powell Jr. in the 1980s to Sandra Day O’Connor, to Anthony M. Kennedy to, now, Chief Justice John G.
Roberts Jr. All of these were Republican
appointees, but they’ve become more conservative with each new
retirement. So the court has moved further and further to the right. There’s now a reliable five-justice majority on
issues ranging from school vouchers and affirmative action to border control and deregulation.

I would be remiss if I did not mention here the most momentous and egregious event in this process of building the current ultraconservative
court: the unprecedented obstruction of President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland.

Scalia died unexpected in February 2016, and Obama put forward Garland’s nomination in March. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) refused to allow any confirmation hearings, citing the presidential election to take place eight months later. President Trump eventually
appointed Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the seat, maintaining the conservative five-justice majority (which was soon strengthened with Justice
Brett M. Kavanaugh replacing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy). Had Garland replaced Scalia, the swing justices (depending on the issue) would
have been moderate-liberal justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Garland — with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor
reliably to their left. Even though Garland was generally seen as a moderate judge, this would have been the court’s most momentous shift to
the left since the 1960s. Decisions like that handed down today would have looked far different.

But the Espinoza decision was itself decades in the making. The legal landscape for vouchers supporting private religious schools has changed
180 degrees, corresponding to the shift in the makeup of justices on the Supreme Court. Vouchers for religious schools have moved from being
broadly understood to be constitutional forbidden in 1970s to constitutionally allowed in 2003, via the Zelman decision, to now arguably
constitutionally required, at least under the Montana circumstances.

Let’s return to that high fence mentioned earlier. Once

the Supreme Court decided to hear the Espinoza case, we
were left to hope that it would at least leave in place a speed bump of separation between church and
state.

What we got instead is a shotgun marriage between church and state.

The court’s decision this morning held that application of the “no aid” provision in the Montana state
constitution was barred by the Constitution’s free-exercise clause. The Montana provision prohibited any direct or
indirect aid to a school controlled by a “church, sect, or denomination.” Like the dispute at issue in the Trinity Lutheran case, this prohibition
was based on status as a religious institution, rather than a religious use. But the
court’s Espinoza majority opinion — written
by Roberts and joined by the other four conservative justices — also minimizes that distinction , which was
important in Locke and potentially crucial to the decision in Trinity Lutheran:

The decision was a long-sought and highly visible conservative victory vehemently
opposed by liberals
Richard Wolf 6/30, Politics Reporter for USA Today, 6/30/20, "Supreme Court makes religious school
education eligible for public aid," USA TODAY,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/30/supreme-court-religious-school-students-
eligible-state-aid/5122877002/

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court delivered a major victory Tuesday to parents seeking state aid for their
children's religious school education.

The court's conservative majority ruled 5-4 that states offering scholarships to students in private
schools cannot exclude religious schools from such programs. The decision was written by Chief Justice
John Roberts, who has joined the liberal justices in three other major rulings this month.
The court stopped short of requiring states to fund religious education, ruling only that programs cannot differentiate between religious and
secular private schools.

"A state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they
are religious," Roberts said.

It was a decision long sought by proponents of school choice and vehemently opposed by teachers'
unions, who fear it could drain needed tax dollars from struggling public schools.

The case was brought by three mothers of religious school students from Montana who sought $500 tuition scholarships funded by a state
tax credit program. The state's highest court struck down the program, citing the separation of church and state . In
response, state officials ended the entire program.

The Supreme Court's liberal justices seized on that point in three separate dissents. They said Montana
solved the discrimination by ending the program .
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ruling solidifies Trump’s trust in the
conservative court with a massive expansion of his power
Ann E. Marimow and Renae Merle 6/29, Reporters for the Washington Post, 6/29/2020, "Supreme
Court makes it easier for president to fire consumer watchdog head,"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-a-consumer-regulators-
structure-unconstitutional/2020/06/29/c7246c06-ba14-11ea-80b9-40ece9a701dc_story.html

The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for the president to remove the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau’s director but allowed the watchdog agency created after the global financial crisis to stand.

In a divided decision, the court said the agency’s structure violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers
design.

Its single-director configuration concentrates “significant governmental power in the hands of a single
individual accountable to no one,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who was joined in part by the court’s
other conservative justices. “. . . With no colleagues to persuade, and no boss or electorate looking over her shoulder, the Director
may dictate and enforce policy for a vital segment of the economy affecting millions of Americans.”

The independent regulatory agency was the brainchild of now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) when she was a Harvard University law
professor. It was part of 2010’s financial overhaul bill, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in response to
the financial crisis. The agency has been a target of conservatives who have criticized it for acting too
aggressively.

The Trump administration backed the challenge, arguing that the president should be free to fire the
bureau’s director.

In its 5-to-4 ruling Monday, the court majority said the structure of the investigative and enforcement agency
violates the Constitution by “concentrating power in a unilateral actor insulated from Presidential
control,” wrote Roberts, who was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh agreed that provisions in the law restricting the director’s removal could be struck while allowing the agency to
continue to operate.

“We think it clear that Congress would prefer that we use a scalpel rather than a bulldozer in curing the constitutional defect we identify
today,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court’s liberals, said Congress should have the flexibility to impose limits on the president’s power to get rid
of agency heads. She faulted the majority for second-guessing Congress, which created the agency to “address financial practices that had
brought on a devastating recession, and could do so again.”

“Today’s
decision wipes out a feature of that agency its creators thought fundamental to its mission — a
measure of independence from political pressure,” Kagan wrote in her dissent.

Trump has been attacking the CFPB since he was inaugurated---he appreciated the
conservative victory---and it only validated the agency’s existence to make its director
the president’s puppet
Alan Rappeport and Adam Liptak 6/29, Adam Liptak covers the United States Supreme Court. A
graduate of Yale Law School, he was a finalist for the 2009 Pulitzer Prize in explanatory reporting and
has taught courses on the Supreme Court at Yale and the University of Chicago AND Alan Rappeport is
an economic policy reporter at The New York Times, 6-29-2020, "Supreme Court Lifts Limits on Trump’s
Power to Fire Consumer Watchdog," No Publication,
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/politics/cfpb-supreme-court.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the president is free to fire the director of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without cause. The decision, rejecting a federal law that sought to place limits
on presidential oversight of independent agencies, was a victory for the conservative movement to curb the
administrative state.
The ruling puts to rest a decade of doubt over whether the bureau and its leadership structure, in which the director is appointed by the
president to a five-year term and cannot be dismissed without a substantial reason, were constitutional. While
the narrow decision
validates the agency’s existence, it could also open it to greater politicization, effectively turning its
director into something akin to a cabinet member who serves at the pleasure of a president.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s five more conservative justices in the majority . Chief Justice John G.
Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the Constitution did not allow powerful agency officials to be insulated from some kinds of executive
oversight.
 2NC -- UQ -- AT: Overwhelms
The Calabresi-Hirji proposal only needs sufficient impetus -- the underlying ideology
mirrors Republican dogma.
Rosenberg ’17 [Paul; December 3; Columnist, citing political analysts; Salon, “GOP's court-packing
spree: It's only the beginning,” https://www.salon.com/2017/12/03/gops-court-packing-spree-its-only-
the-beginning/; RP]

The reason they might do that brings us to the second remarkable thing Primus notes:

Second, the document depicts a judiciary that is populated, not by honorable judges who are appointed by
Presidents of both parties and who often have good-faith disagreements, but by conservative
judges on one hand
and, on the other, Democratic-appointed judges who subvert the rule of law. In the paper’s view, the rule of
law itself demands that Democratic appointees not be permitted to exercise judicial power.

It’s not an idea in isolation, he notes. It echoes the Republicans' refusal to consider Obama’s nomination of
Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court and their decision to confirm only two circuit court justices during his last two years,
along with public statements by “Republican Senators from McConnell to Cruz to McCain [who] said publicly that if Hillary Clinton
won the election, they wouldn’t consider any of her nominees to the Supreme Court.” In all these cases, Primus writes:

The underlying logic, of course, is the same as that of the Calabresi-Hirji proposal. Democratic-
appointed judges are not to be considered a normal part of the system, fit to exercise adjudicative authority
because they too are honorable servants of the Constitution, even when they understand the Constitution
differently from the way we understand it. No. They are to be regarded unfit per se.

Republicans are on the cusp of a full roll-out of the Calabresi plan -- the future of
progressive policy will determine its implementation.
Klain ’17 [Ronald; November 21; J.D. from Harvard University, A.B. from Georgetown University;
Washington Post, “Conservatives have a breathtaking plan for Trump to pack the courts,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-have-a-breathtaking-plan-for-trump-to-pack-
the-courts/2017/11/21/; RP]

Conservatives have a new court-packing plan, and in the spirit of the holiday, it's a turducken of a scheme: a
regulatory rollback hidden inside a civil rights reversal stuffed into a Trumpification of the courts. If
conservatives get their way, President Trump will add twice as many lifetime members to the federal judiciary in
the next 12 months (650) as Barack Obama named in eight years (325). American law will never be the same. The "outer
turkey" in the plan is the ongoing Trumpification of the courts. In the final two years of Obama's presidency, Senate
Republicans engaged in tenacious obstruction to leave as many judicial vacancies unfilled as possible. The
Garland-to-Gorsuch Supreme Court switch is the most visible example of this tactic but far from the only one: Due to GOP obstruction, "the
number of [judicial] vacancies . . . on the table when [Trump] was sworn in was unprecedented," White House Counsel Donald McGahn recently
boasted to the conservative Federalist Society. Trump is wasting no time in filling the 103 judicial vacancies he
inherited. In the first nine months of Obama's tenure, he nominated 20 judges to the federal trial and appellate courts; in Trump's first
nine months, he named 58. Senate Republicans are racing these nominees through confirmation ; last week, breaking a
100-year-old tradition, they eliminated the "blue slip" rule that allowed home-state senators to object to particularly
problematic nominees. The rush to Trumpify the judiciary includes nominees rated unqualified by the American Bar Association, nominees
with outrageously conservative views and nominees significantly younger (and, therefore, likely to serve longer) than those of previous
presidents. As a result, by sometime next year, 1 in 8 cases filed in federal court will be heard by a judge picked by
Trump. Many of these judges will likely still be serving in 2050. But even this plan — to fill approximately 150 judicial vacancies
before the 2018 elections — is not enough for conservatives. Enter the next element of the court-packing turducken:
a new plan written by the crafty co-founder of the Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi. In a paper that deserves credit for its
transparency (it features a section titled "Undoing President Barack Obama's Judicial Legacy"), Calabresi proposes to pack the
federal courts with a "minimum" of 260 — and possibly as many as 447 — newly created judicial positions. Under
this plan, the 228-year-old federal judiciary would increase — in a single year — by 30 to 50 percent. Never mind that
Republicans saw no urgency in filling judicial vacancies while Obama was president. Never mind that they ignored pleas from conservative Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to fill positions in courts facing "judicial emergencies." Now, conservatives
want a 30 to 50 percent
increase in the number of federal judgeships. And they have a clear idea of who should fill this massive number of new posts:
"President Trump and the Republican Senate will need to fill all of these new judgeships in 2018, before the next session of Congress."
Almost overnight, the judicial branch would come to consist of almost equal parts judges picked by nine
presidents combined — Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama — and judges picked by
one: Donald J. Trump. The effect on our civil rights and liberties would be astounding. And a continuation of
the pattern of Trump's nominees to date — more white and more male than any president's in nearly 30 years — would roll back
decades of progress in judicial diversity. But even that isn't enough for the Turducken Court Packers. They have
jammed one more "treat" inside this turkey. Calabresi has also proposed that Congress abolish 158 administrative
law judgeships in federal regulatory agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration,
Federal Communications Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission, and replace these impartial fact-finders with a new
corps of 158 Trump-selected judges who — unlike current administrative law judges — would serve for life. These new
Trump administrative law judges would have vast power over environmental, health and safety, fair
competition, communications, labor, financial and consumer regulation for decades. Unlike the existing
administrative law judges, selected as nonpartisan members of the civil service, Calabresi's replacement corps
would all be picked in a single year, by a single man: Donald J. Trump. And if this breathtaking transformation of our federal
judicial system isn't jarring enough, Calabresi has one final treat: a proposal that Congress do all of this in the tax-cut bill that Congress is trying
to pass before it leaves for the holidays. Progressives
need to mount a more cohesive and effective plan to slow
down the Trump train of judicial transformation. Otherwise, we'll have a court-packing turducken for
Thanksgiving, and a revolutionary rollback in rights and regulation for Christmas.
2NC Link
 2NC -- Link -- Activism
New activism causes packing -- even unsuccessful attacks trigger the impact by forcing
justices to preemptively comply with Trump’s agenda -- turns case because courts
won’t rule on progressive issues.
ALE ’16 [American Legal Encyclopedia; April 25; Synthesis of the most comprehensive, up-to-date, and
authoritative legal dictionaries; American Legal Encyclopedia, “Court Curbing,” https://lawi.us/court-
curbing/; RP]

Court Curbing in the United States Efforts

directed at constraining the influence of courts. Court “curbing” occurs
because the courts make decisions that disturb other public officials or the public. If court decisions are
sufficiently disturbing, one or another “curbing” initiatives may result. The courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, are
vulnerable to these initiatives because they are linked in a variety of ways to the other branches. The initiatives have
two objectives. One is to apply enough political pressure to bring about a change in decisional behavior. The other, more
extreme objective is to make structural adjustments to judicial institutions. These adjustments may keep the
courts from being able to render certain kinds of decisions at all. Policy directions of the courts can generally be
kept in check through the normal processes of judicial selection. Beyond that, the Congress determines the
jurisdiction and size of federal courts. This is true even for the Supreme Court, where Congress has the
authority to regulate or otherwise make exceptions to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. These are potentially
very effective court “curbing” methods . Moreover, the executive and legislative branches are often critical in
securing compliance with court rulings. Finally, courts can be constrained by actions taken to directly nullify
particular decisions. This often takes the form of statutory reversal , but the constitutional amendment process may be
accessed for this purpose as well. Analysis and Relevance Court “curbing” is not a permanent condition. Indeed, the courts are normally headed
in the same policy directions as the other branches, thus there is no need to “curb” them. Efforts to constrain the courts are usually
prompted by substantial and rapid shifts in direction by the electorate, by the lack of turnover in incumbents, or a
combination of the two. The court “packing” initiative of President Franklin D. Roosevelt is illustrative. Economic conditions
during the Depression produced extensive political realignment. The priorities of the Hoover Administration were replaced by those of
Roosevelt’s New Deal. A majority of justices on the Supreme Court did not reflect these same priorities. Conflict
between the Court and other branches resulted. The problem was aggravated because none of the sitting justices left the
Court during Roosevelt’s first term. Following his reelection, Roosevelt sought to “curb” the intransigent Court by adding justices. He
wanted to “pack” the Court with justices who would support New Deal legislation. Congress declined to adopt the
plan to enlarge the Court. Although the initiative was not formally successful, subsequent decisions of the Court were
more supportive of the New Deal, even without a change in Court personnel. Congressional control over
jurisdiction can also be used as a means of court “curbing.” Because Congress has the authority to create all lower
federal courts, it has complete control over the definition of the jurisdiction of any court it creates. If so inclined,
Congress could keep lower federal courts from ruling on one or more issues, possibly the more controversial
social issues such as the busing of school students. The Congress can also regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. This approach has a downside because it might remove from the Supreme Court the ability to
fashion doctrine that applies uniformly across the nation. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction has
been regulated. After the Civil War, for example, the Congress wished to keep the Court from considering the constitutionality of the
Reconstruction Acts. It did so by withholding the Court’s jurisdiction over all habeas corpus actions. The Court itself upheld this congressional
action in Ex parte McCardle (7 Wallace 506: 1869). Similar exceptions to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction have been proposed, but have not
been formally adopted. Like other court “curbing” techniques, however, threatening
jurisdictional changes conveys a
political message. Occasionally, the Court’s response to these messages is to modify its own decisional
behavior.
 2NC -- Link -- CJR
The court is deliberately silent on criminal justice to placate the conservative wing --
the plan heralds the arrival of a new liberal bloc.
Waters ’18 [Michael; July 9; Contributor, citing a study published conducted by Northwestern law
professor Tonja Jacobi and Minnesota Court of Appeals law clerk Ross Berlin; The Outline, “The Supreme
Court’s silence on criminal justice issues,” https://theoutline.com/post/5232/supreme-court-criminal-
justice-mass-incarceration; RP]

President Trump’s nominee to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy is set to perpetuate the Supreme Court’s
irrelevance on criminal justice cases. A study last month from Northwestern law professor Tonja Jacobi and Minnesota Court
of Appeals law clerk Ross Berlin argues that since the 1970s, the Court has “sidestepped” profound criminal justice issues
like stop-and-frisk, mass incarceration sentencing, unfair plea deals, and police shootings. In part, that's because criminal justice is
among the issues the Court’s liberals have ignored in order to pander to swing vote Anthony Kennedy, as UCLA
law professor Jon D. Michaels argued in a Los Angeles Times op-ed Monday. “For years, progressive justices have tacked to the
center, principally to win over Kennedy. In the process, they’ve often abandoned left-liberal constitutional
theories,” Michaels claimed. Much is uncertain about how the new justice will view policing and sentencing cases, but the study's lead
author Tonja Jacobi told The Outline that though Kennedy’s replacement “could appear to be a little more moderate on these issues” than
Kennedy, “I
don't expect it to be a significant turn toward broader criminal procedure rights generally,” she said.
The problem is not that the Supreme Court doesn’t address criminal justice issues at all, but that it addresses
them in limited ways that don’t align with how most people experience the criminal justice system. Most of the
Supreme Court’s focus has been on criminal trials — even though only about 1 percent of criminal justice cases actually end in a trial. As an
example, stop-and-frisk is one of the most pervasive uses of police force and, like most police tactics, it disproportionately targets communities
of color. But the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue only to ask whether evidence found from stops and frisks can be used at trial. On
the larger issue of whether police have the right to conduct searches that target black and Latinx people even when it doesn’t end in a
criminal charge, the Supreme Court has remained silent. The scope of its rulings on stop-and-frisk is limited to the
rare instances in which the person being searched is actually charged with a crime, well below 12 percent of all stops
and frisks. “The multidecade battle between the liberal and conservative justices over whether [allowing evidence
found from random searches] should be further restricted or fully expanded is irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of
people affected by illegal police encounters, who are typically not prosecuted,” Jacobi and Berlin write. Some prosecutors offer
predatory plea deals to people charged with crimes, believing they can scare them. The justices have done little to place limits
on what plea deals prosecutors can offer — even though, as the authors write, “almost all criminal cases are resolved via pleas,” not
trials. The Supreme Court, too, has not weighed in on harsh sentences, especially for minor drug crimes, that have led to
the imprisonment of 2.3 million Americans. Almost all of the Court’s sentencing cases have revolved around the death penalty — an important
issue, but one that directly impacts only about 20 to 50 people each year and that “has no measurable effect on the United States’ anomalous
mass-incarceration problem.” In his LA Times op-ed, Michaels offers a solution to the Court's relevance woes: fiery,
progressive
dissents that broaden the discussion on these issues and trailblaze the path for future liberals on the
Court.

The court’s conservative on criminal justice -- that’s a hot-button issue.

Kalmbacher ’20 [Colin; March 23; Political analyst, citing the Supreme Court of the United States; Law
& Crime, “Liberal Justice Sides with Conservatives and States’ Rights in Criminal Justice Case,”
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/liberal-justice-sides-with-conservatives-and-states-rights-in-
criminal-justice-case/; RP]

Barack Obama‘shandpicked replacement for legendary liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has once
again sided with the conservative majority on a hot-button criminal justice issue. In a 6-3 opinion authored by
Justice Elena Kagan, an extremely limited insanity defense in the State of Kansas was deemed to be constitutionally sufficient under the Due
Process Clause–which will now result in the petitioner being executed by the state. The
ruling is being viewed as a decided
setback for criminal justice reform advocates and the rights of criminal defendants. “Elena Kagan – whose
appointment, you may recall, was opposed by many on the left because she was far more conservative than John Paul
Stevens [and] had no judicial record – joins (again) with the Court’s right-wing, upholding Kansas’s narrow insanity defense,”
commented attorney and The Intercept editor Glenn Greenwald. Stylized as Kahler v. Kansas, the case concerns a man, James Kahler, who shot
and killed four of his family members. Kahler raised the state’s limited insanity defense at trial and during the sentencing phase–while also filing
separate pre-trial litigation arguing that Kansas had effectively abolished the insanity defense entirely. His arguments before the Supreme Court
were an agglomeration of his various pre-trial, trial and post-trial defenses and theories. Kagan and the conservatives rejected Kahler’s claim
that Kansas had abolished the insanity defense–by eliding it entirely. Instead, the high court ignored that claim and found Kansas’s limited
defense was constitutionally firm–essentially because of states’ rights. The controversial majority opinion notes: Kahler…asked this Court to
decide whether the Due Process Clause requires States to provide an insanity defense that acquits a defendant who could not “distinguish right
from wrong” when committing his crime—or, other-wise put, whether that Clause requires States to adopt [a] moral-incapacity test…We
granted certiorari and now hold it does not. “Contrary to Kahler’s view, Kansas takes account of mental health at both trial and sentencing,”
Kagan concludes. “It has just not adopted the particular insanity defense Kahler would like. That choice is for Kansas to make—and, if it wishes,
to remake and remake again as the future unfolds. No insanity rule in this country’s heritage or history was ever so settled as to tie a State’s
hands centuries later.” “I’m disappointed by Justice Kagan’s opinion in Kahler v. Kansas,” tweeted University of North Carolina Criminal Law
Professor and criminal justice reform advocate Carissa Byrne Hessick. “It
neglects the important role that courts historically
played in pushing back against punitive criminal statutes. Perhaps more disappointing is the analytical sleight of hand
about whether [Kansas] abolished insanity.”

A republican counterattack is inevitable with CJR

Pinto 20 -- a journalist living in Brooklyn. His work has appeared in the New York Times Magazine,
Rolling Stone, the Wall Street Journal, Gothamist, the Village Voice, and elsewhere. (Nick, "The
Unraveling of Hard-Won Criminal Justice Reforms in New York," Intercept,
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/23/criminal-justice-bail-reform-backlash-new-york/ 1-25-2020)// gcd

To reformers’ dismay, the

issue has become a political football. State Republicans see the reforms as a chance
to win back control of the state Senate by painting Democrats as soft on crime. It’s a return to a well-
worn playbook: For decades, Republicans have hammered their opponents with scare campaigns full of
racist dog whistles. The tactic reached its apotheosis in George H.W. Bush’s Willie Horton campaign ad and, by the
1990s, Democrats were triangulating, talking about “superpredators” and passing their own brutal crime bills. With New York
Senate Democrats’ evident intention to turn tail and disavow their own legislation, history may be repeating itself. The stakes are high. New
York has long been a national bellwether for criminal justice policy . Around the country, opponents of mass
incarceration are anxiously watching the backlash in this state of 20 million peop le. The interests arrayed against
New York’s reforms exist everywhere, and something like the counterattack happening in New York can be
expected anywhere criminal justice reform makes substantial progress . Have decades of dropping crime rates and a
growing awareness of the racist violence baked into our criminal system primed the public to be open to experiment with alternatives to
maximal incarceration? Or do the throwback, boogeyman
politics of Willie Horton and superpredators hold the same
power that they did 30 years ago? In New York, we’re about to find out. The Compromise Reforms Critics of last year’s reforms call
the measures rushed and poorly thought out. “That’s just wrong,” retorted Justine Olderman, executive director of the Bronx Defenders, a
public defender organization that lobbied for the reforms. “We have been having these conversations in Albany literally for years.” The
difference, of course, is that in previous years, Republicans controlled the legislature, which meant that police and prosecutors who had their
ear could block the reforms. Last
year, with Democrats in control, the issues were given a full hearing with input
from all sides, and the anti-reform voices couldn’t kill the legislation . That’s not to say that the reformers rammed
their demands through without concession. On the contrary, the negotiations around bail reform were incredibly delicate, and the resulting
compromise left some anti-incarceration advocates feeling that altogether too much had been given away.
Regardless of small shifts, backlash to soft on crime policy is the backbone of
Republican ideology
Alberta 20 -- is chief political correspondent at Politico Magazine. (Tim, "Is This the Last Stand of the
‘Law and Order’ Republicans?," https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/08/last-stand-law-
and-order-republicans-306333 6-8-2020)// gcd

To some, this anti-Bush sentiment from the right would seem misplaced . There were no direct attacks on
President Donald Trump, no critiques of his administration’s response to the latest nation-roiling crisis .
But that was beside the point. Conservatives weren’t angry because Bush was undermining Trump; they were
angry because Bush was undermining their worldview, their core belief that police are heroes and
protesters are criminals and the only tragic failure in America is a failure to respect authority. They were
angry because Bush was undermining their notions of “law and order.” It’s a loaded phrase, one that politicians in
both parties have invoked for decades—with great success—to project a certain virility to the electorate. It has recently taken on even harsher
connotations in the context of Trump’s Twitter usage (10 times in just the past week) and the accompanying sentiments (threats of unleashing
“vicious dogs” on rioters, and promises of, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”) But it has long carried a cautionary subtext: Don’t
dare challenge the integrity of a justice system predicated on punishing wrongdoers, the harsher the
better. Over time, this has meant fewer rehabilitative doors opened and more retributive cells slammed
shut. It has meant refusing to acknowledge that anything is fundamentally amiss with the system itself ; that
disparities and discrimination are not the same thing, that isolated incidents of police misconduct are just that, no
matter their regularity or similarities. The Democratic Party has distanced itself from this mentality since the mid-1990s, a
response to the toll on its diverse constituencies taken by “tough on crime” legislation. But the movement among Republicans has been more
incremental. An infusion of libertarianism into the party’s DNA and the advocacy efforts from some major
donors, including the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, have begun to challenge the party’s traditional
posture. The GOP, at Trump’s direction, passed a criminal-justice reform bill in 2018 that takes modest steps toward
shortening federal sentences for nonviolent offenders. But even at a time when cellphone footage showing obvious
police brutality has become a routine viral event, individual Republicans have remained hesitant to dig deeper
into root causes of injustices plaguing black America. Confronting one bad policy is easy; tracing that bad policy to a broken
institution with embedded racial inequalities is much, much harder. Which made George W. Bush’s statement all the more extraordinary.
“Many doubt the justice of our country, and with good reason. Black people see the repeated violation of their rights without an urgent and
adequate response from American institutions,” he wrote. “This tragedy—in a long series of similar tragedies—raises a long overdue question:
How do we end systemic racism in our society?” It’s a question of enormous consequence . If only Bush’s fellow Republicans
agreed on the premise. No, I do not think you can paint with a broad brush and say there’s systemic racism in the criminal justice
system in America,” Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton told me last Tuesday, right around the time Bush’s statement came out. “Can there be
inequality? Can there be injustices in particular cases? Yes, there can be. But I do not think you can, nor should you, paint with such a broad
brush.” This is the politically safe answer for a Republican. Just as it’s the politically safe answer to emphasize
violent riots over nonviolent demonstrations. Just as it’s the politically safe answer to applaud Trump’s march to
St. John’s Church and ignore (or justify) the forceful removal of peaceful protesters with chemical irritants that made the photo op
possible. These were the politically safe answers provided by the vast majority of Republicans last week, on
Capitol Hill and around the country.

2020 campaigns validated CJR is a liberal platform – opposition to mandatory

minimums, cash bail, and private prisons
Engler ’19 – Harvard Graduate; Senior analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus, an editorial board member
at Dissent and a contributing editor at Yes! Magazine (Mark, “Criminal Justice Reform & the 2020
Election,” Morningside Center for Teaching Moral Responsibility, 11/11/19,
https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/criminal-justice-reform-2020-
election)//ly
The shift in views on crime and punishment has been accompanied by new policy ideas. Here are three policy ideas that the experts – and the
2020 presidential candidates – are now debating. Mandatory minimum sentences were once popular with politicians
who wanted to appear tough on crime. A “mandatory minimum sentence” is a legal requirement that someone convicted of a
particular offense must be imprisoned for a certain minimum period of time. Minimum mandatory sentences contributed to the rapid rise of
the U.S. prison population in the past several decades. Ten
2020 Democratic presidential candidates have vowed to get
rid of mandatory minimum sentencing entirely. Politico reporter Caitlin Oprysko summarized the issue: Mandatory minimum
sentences for drug offenses were significantly expanded at the federal level via a 1986 bill aimed at addressing drug abuse. The law required
that certain offenses be punishable with a minimum sentence regardless of the circumstances of a case or an individual, which, advocates of
reform say, have been a major contributing factor to mass incarceration in the U.S. Reform advocates also say prosecutors often use the threat
of charges that carry steep minimum sentences to elicit a guilty plea to lesser charges regardless of a defendant’s guilt. While
the 2018
criminal justice bill signed by President Trump enacted some reforms to federal mandatory minimum
guidelines, many 2020 Democrats say it didn’t go far enough. Cash bail. A second leading reform is to end
or restrict the use of cash bail. “Cash bail” is the requirement that someone who is charged with a crime (but not yet convicted)
must make a deposit of money in order to be released before their trial. The stated purpose of cash bail is to ensure that the defendant will
return to court for their trial. In their 2016 document entitled “A Vision for Black Lives: Policy Demands for Black Power, Freedom and Justice,”
the Movement for Black Lives coalition described the problem of cash bail: Low-income people who are arrested spend an average of 23 days in
a cage before their day in court simply because they often cannot afford to pay bail. For people who live paycheck to paycheck, even a short
stint in jail can have devastating consequences including job loss, eviction, or having their children taken away. This is true even when they are
not convicted. According to a 2010 Human Rights Watch report, for 72 percent of misdemeanor cases in New York, bail was set at $1,000 or less
and still defendants could not pay the bail amount. Bail is not only inhumane, it is costly . A 2010 Human Rights Watch report
calculated that New York City was paying $42 million a year to incarcerate non-felony defendants. Local jurisdictions now spend $22.2 billion
every year on correctional institutions. Bail, like all things criminal justice related, is also racially discriminatory. Black
defendants have 44 percent higher odds of being denied bail and kept in jail pretrial than white defendants with similar legal circumstances….
The U.S. should initiate legislation to eliminate the bail system and capture the billions of dollars in savings to support more effective and
humane alternatives to criminalization. According to a summary of candidate positions for Politico, as of October 2019, ten Democratic
candidates have vowed to end cash bail entirely and three have vowed to reform or reduce it. Roll back
private prisons. A third idea for criminal justice reform is to curtail or end the use of private prisons . So far,
eleven Democratic candidates have come out in favor of ending federal contracts with private prisons
entirely. In a June 2019 article in the Los Angeles Times, staff writer Evan Halper highlighted the growing consensus within the party:
Democratic presidential candidates, seizing on anger over the mistreatment of immigrants at privately
run detention centers, are pushing to outlaw them — and private prisons altogether, moving the issue
to prominence in the 2020 primary race. The demand for a ban on private lockups is becoming an
increasingly potent campaign issue, as the private prison industry flourishes under a Trump
administration eager to provide it with inmates and lucrative federal contracts. As the population
housed in private lockups grows, a steady stream of government investigations and media reports has
documented abuses and called into question whether they are saving taxpayers any money. [In mid June
2019], Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts rolled out a detailed critique of the facilities as well as her blueprint for getting rid of them. She
joined other candidates who are vowing to phase out all private immigrant detention centers and prisons operated for the federal government,
including Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. “The companies running prisons and detention centers regularly
sacrifice safety to boost their bottom line,” Warren wrote in a Medium post published Friday morning. “Washington hands billions over to
corporations profiting off of inhumane detention and incarceration policies while ignoring the families that are destroyed in the process. We
need to call that out for what it is: corruption.”
 2NC -- Link -- Controversy
Controversy alone triggers the link.
Crabb ’12 [Barbara; 2012; United States District Judge in the Western District of Wisconsin; Wisconsin
Law Review, “Bridging the Divide Between Congress and the Courts,”
https://repository.law.wisc.edu/api/law_fileserve/search?mediaID=83832; RP]

The divides between and among the branches are a given in our system. The congressional-executive divide is a continuing
struggle for supremacy, fueled by the constant pull of partisan politics, ideology, lobbyists, the media, financial influence, and the unrelenting
focus on the next election. The
judicial-legislative divide is marked by legislative indifference, broken
intermittently by periods of anger provoked by controversial judicial decisions or the perception that
judges are disregarding congressional directives. Partisan politics are at play in the relationship, particularly
when Congress confirms, or refuses to confirm, judicial nominees and when it establishes, or refuses to establish, new
judgeships, but these fights are essentially between Congress and the executive branch. The judiciary is the battlefield, not the
army.
 2NC -- Link -- Death Penalty
Abolishing the death penalty dovetails with increased liberal support.
Dunham ’16 [Robert; August 4; Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center; DPIC,
“Political Affiliation and the Death Penalty,” https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/public-
opinion-polls/political-affiliation-and-the-death-penalty; RP]

A 2015 national poll by the Pew Resource Center reported declining support for the death penalty in the United States
across virtually all demographic groups, with the drop in support especially pronounced among Democrats. Pew Resource
Center, Less Support for Death Penalty, Especially Among Democrats (Apr. 16, 2015). Pew reported significant drops in support for the death
penalty among all political affiliations between 1995 and 2015 (see the chart to the right), with declines of 31 and 22 percentage points among
Democrats and Independents, respectively, and a 10 percentage-point drop in support for the death penalty among Republicans. Asof March
2015, 77% of Republicans, 57% of Independents, and 40% of Democrats said they favored the death penalty.
17% of Republicans, 37% of Independents, and 56% of Democrats said they opposed capital punishment. From
November 2011 to March 2015, Pew reported significant declines in support for the death penalty among
Democrats and Independents (9 and 7 percentage points, respectively), and a slight decline among Republicans as a whole (2 percentage
points). However, support for the death penalty among those who identified themself as conservative Republicans fell 7 percentage points
during this period, matching the drop for Independents and for those who identified themselves as conservative/moderate Democrats. Support
for the death penalty among liberal Democrats fell by 11 percentage points (to 29%) over this period. The Pew Poll also asked
respondents questions about whether the death penalty was morally justified, the risk of executing
innocent persons, whether the death penalty is a deterrent, and racial disparities in the application of the
death penalty. Republicans were significantly more likely to say that the death penalty was morally justified
(80%), as compared to Democrats (50%) and Independents (64%). 79% of Democrats believed that the death penalty carried a risk of putting
an innocent person to death, as contrasted with 71% of Independents and 61% of Republicans. A significant majority of
Democrats (71%) and Independents (60%) believed that the death penalty was not a deterrent, a view shared by about
half of all Republicans (48%). The biggest divide on death penalty views—a nearly 40 percentage point split—came in the area of
race. While 70% of Democrats believed that minorities were more likely to face the death penalty, only half of
Independents (52%) and fewer than a third of Republicans (31%) shared that view.

The Conservative Court just refused a death penalty hearing – the plan would be a
surprising liberal win
NYT ’20 – (Adam Liptak, “Federal Executions Can Restart After Supreme Court Declines a Case,”
6/29/20, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/supreme-court-executions.html)//ly

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling allowing the Trump administration to
resume executions in federal death penalty cases after a 17-year hiatus. The court’s order cleared the
way for the executions of four men in the coming months. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor
said they would have heard the case. Attorney General William P. Barr announced last summer that the federal
government would end what had amounted to a moratorium on capital punishment. There are more than 60
prisoners on death row in federal prisons. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, of the Federal District Court in Washington, blocked the
executions in November, saying the protocol the government planned to use did not comply with the
Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, which requires executions to be carried out “in the manner
prescribed by the law of the state in which the sentence is imposed.” The central legal question in the
case is whether the word “manner” in the 1994 law refers to the methods of execution authorized by the relevant
states (like hanging, firing squad or lethal injection) or the protocols the states require (like the particular chemicals used in lethal injections,
whether a doctor must be present or how a catheter is to be inserted). In his announcement last year, Mr. Barr said the federal government
would replace the three-chemical cocktail it had used in earlier executions with a single chemical, pentobarbital. Judge Chutkan wrote that
using a uniform nationwide protocol was not authorized by the 1994 law. All of the relevant states permit or require executions by lethal
injections, but the details of their protocols vary. That meant, Judge Chutkan wrote, that the federal protocol was at odds with the 1994 law. In
December, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block Judge Chutkan’s ruling . The court
declined, but it ordered the appeals court to resolve the case “with appropriate dispatch.” In a statement at the time, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.,
joined by Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, said that the “the government has shown that it is very likely to prevail” when the
case moved forward. In April, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated
Judge Chutkan’s ruling, though the two judges in the majority, both appointed by President Trump, offered conflicting rationales for doing so.
Judge Gregory G. Katsas concluded that the 1994 law “regulates only the top-line choice among execution methods such as hanging,
electrocution or lethal injection.” Judge Neomi Rao disagreed, saying the law also requires the federal government to follow execution
procedures in state statutes and regulations — but not in less formal execution protocols. The two judges agreed, however, that the executions
could proceed. In dissent, Judge David S. Tatel, who
was appointed by President Bill Clinton , wrote that the law
“requires federal executions to be carried out using the same procedures that states use to execute
their own prisoners — procedures set forth not just in statutes and regulations, but also in protocols issued by state prison officials
pursuant to state law.”
 2NC -- Link -- Detention Centers
Even Biden supports closing private detention centers – the aff is a huge dem victory
Fox ’19 (Brooke Singman, “In 2020 Democratic field, push to close border detention centers goes
mainstream,” 9/3/19, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/in-2020-democratic-field-push-to-close-
border-detention-centers-goes-mainstream)//ly

A growing number of Democratic presidential candidates are calling for the closure of migrant
detention centers at the border, marking the 2020 field’s latest shift to the left on immigration. The
candidates largely cite the Trump administration’s practice of family separations—a policy that mostly ended last
year—in arguing that at least privately run detention centers need to be shuttered . Former Vice President
Joe Biden, who remains the front-runner in the Democratic field, became the latest to endorse the call last week. When
asked at a campaign stop in Rock Hill, S.C., how he would improve migrant detention centers , he replied: “Close them
down… By the way, we don’t need them!” Biden went on to cite his experience in the Obama
administration, saying the centers were unnecessary because “we kind of said, if you had said you have
to report back for a hearing on such and such a date, people show up!” A Biden spokesperson later clarified his
comments to Fox News, noting that the former vice president proposes closing only “for-profit” detention centers. “Like Joe Biden said
when he launched his campaign and has repeated many times, we are in a battle for the soul of this
nation. Donald Trump’s treatment of immigrants—separating families, putting children in cages while
depriving them of basic human needs, and constantly depicting them as the ‘other’ is an appalling
violating of our most deeply-held values as Americans, ” Biden spokesman Andrew Bates told Fox News. “As president, Joe
Biden would abolish for-profit detention centers and immediately end Trump’s family separation
policy.”
 2NC -- Link -- Marijuana
De-scheduling marijuana would be a huge dem win – it’s the most popularly
supported platform
CNBC ’19 – (Ashley Turner, “Most 2020 Democratic presidential candidates agree on recreational
marijuana: Legalize it,” 4/20/19, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/2020-democratic-candidates-
stand-together-on-marijuana-legalize-it.html)//ly

There’s one topic almost every 2020 Democratic presidential candidate agrees on: removing
marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances. Nearly every candidate has offered support for the federal
legalization of recreational marijuana and many have called to expunge federal charges for those prosecuted for pot use. Ten states and
the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana use and more states have signaled
interest in doing so. Public opinion has shifted in favor of legalization, with 61% of Americans believing
marijuana should be legal. Democrats support it even more, with 76% favoring legal marijuana, according
to a 2018 poll of 2,348 American adults. Critics of recreational marijuana fear it would make the drug too accessible and could promote misuse,
but supporters cite increased tax revenues and racial imbalances in criminal sentences for drug offenders as reasons for legalization. Here is
what the Democratic presidential candidates have said and done about legalization: Sen. Cory
Booker of New Jersey
reintroduced a bill in February that would legalize marijuana nationwide, expunge federal convictions
and allow those prosecuted for use to petition the courts for shorter sentences . Booker first introduced the
Marijuana Justice Act in 2017, but it was not taken up for a vote. Other Democratic presidential candidates have offered
support for the proposal, with New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, California Sen. Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders co-sponsoring the bill. Sanders has been a major supporter of marijuana legalization and introduced the
Senate’s first-ever bill to end the federal prohibition on marijuana in 2015. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who announced his candidacy earlier this
month, and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard also signed on to the Marijuana Justice Act’s companion bill in the House. Though
Booker’s
proposal has support from a number of Democrats, it faces a tough road in the Senate . Last year, Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he does “not have any plans to endorse the legalization of
marijuana,” when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced a bill that would decriminalize the drug. Republicans
hold a 53-47 edge in the Senate, although Democrats control the House. The Marijuana Justice Act is only the most recent bill that
candidates have supported.

The aff symbolizes federal approval for democratic legalization at the state-level
AP News ’18 (Rob Wolfe, “Democrats make marijuana legalization part of party platform,” 6/23/18,
https://apnews.com/4973bdef74a942feb3147a886e193595/Democrats-make-marijuana-legalization-
part-of-party-platform)//ly

New Hampshire Democrats on Saturday added marijuana legalization to their party platform, bolstering
advocates’ hopes of catching the state up with the regulations of neighboring states. “We believe that marijuana should be
legalized, taxed and regulated,” said the platform adopted at the New Hampshire Democratic Party convention held at the Stratham
Cooperative Middle School. State delegates voted by acclamation to accept the platform. They also approved a resolution
advocating the removal of marijuana from the federal government’s list of top class drugs, along with
heroin and cocaine. Democrats in recent months have debated the potential legalization and regulation of cannabis, with supporters
saying New Hampshire is falling behind neighboring states. Vermont in January legalized the possession and cultivation
of small amounts of marijuana. Maine has voted to legalize recreational marijuana , despite opposition from
Republican Gov. Paul LePage. Marijuana shops are slated to open in Massachusetts this year. Chris Pappas , a Democratic executive
councilor running in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District primary, said he supports state-level
legalization. “It’s clearly a matter of when and not if marijuana gets legalized in New Hampshire,” he said. “I think that at the point in time
when it is legalized we need to be ready to make sure that public safety is protected.” Pappas predicted voters would be considering pot policy
this fall, but he said he doubted it would be their top issue. Health care and the economy likely will take precedence, he said. Democratic
gubernatorial candidates Molly Kelly and Steve Marchand both said they back marijuana legalization, with Marchand noting he supported it in
his unsuccessful 2016 run for governor, before his party as a whole. Throughout the convention, Democratic lawmakers and candidates for
office hammered President Donald Trump over his administration’s policy of forcible family separation at the border. U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan
noted that, despite an executive order that effectively ends the practice, thousands of children may endure lasting damage. “We have heard
the cries of screaming kids who have no idea where their parents are being taken or if they’ll ever even see them again,” she said in a speech to
the convention floor. U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster sent a stand-in speaker because she was scheduled to visit a federal immigrant detention facility
Saturday.
 2NC -- Link -- Liberal Rulings
Liberal rulings force Trump to double down on court packing to win the election – he’s
on edge after recent losses.
CNN ‘6/30 [CNN; Cable News Network; 6-30-2020; "Trump hoping for Supreme Court vacancy as way
to boost a flagging campaign"; Local News 8; https://localnews8.com/politics/2020/06/30/trump-
hoping-for-supreme-court-vacancy-as-way-to-boost-a-flagging-campaign/; Accessed 7-3-2020; AH]

Trump hoping for Supreme Court vacancy as way to boost a flagging campaign As the Supreme Court hands his administration
successive defeats at the same time his political standing craters, President Donald Trump has begun to raise
both publicly and privately the potential boon another nomination to the panel this year might provide. It’s an
alluring prospect Trump believes could galvanize both his loyal base but also provide an opportunity to
improve his standing among those voters whose support he is now hemorrhaging, people familiar with Trump’s
thinking said. That includes women, who Trump believes might be swayed if he nominates a female justice.
Trump’s backing among women has waned as he adopts a hardline stance on racial matters and largely
ignores the coronavirus pandemic. Trump has also suggested older voters might appreciate efforts to solidify the court’s conservative
leaning for another generation, believing that group is focused on the court as an election issue. The President has long cast a
potential third Supreme Court nomination as rationale for his reelection. But as the court’s term ends, Trump
has begun musing at how a more immediate vacancy may help improve his weakened political standing
in the months before November’s election. “We have two justices of the Supreme Court — Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh,
they’re great,” Trump told supporters at his rally in Tulsa earlier this month. “We have two and we could get a few
more. Yeah. We could get a few.” It’s considered unlikely that members of the court’s liberal wing — including its two oldest justices, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — would retire while Trump remains in office. That has led to speculation surrounding the two oldest
Republican appointees, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — though any hint of their future plans remains closely held. Trump has long
touted his two Supreme Court nominations — along with efforts to reshape the federal judiciary
through lower court nominations — as a landmark achievement of his first term. Even for Republicans who disdain
Trump’s behavior and question his fitness for office, the judicial efforts have provided a silver lining and, at least for some,
reason to maintain their support. This month, Trump marked 200 appointments to the federal bench, a
massive number that far exceeds his predecessor. Yet at least at the Supreme Court, the payoff for Trump’s effort hasn’t been
clear cut. As Chief Justice John Roberts sides with liberal justices on immigration, LGBTQ rights and abortion,
the issues conservatives had hoped would face new reckoning by Trump’s picks have gone in another
direction. Monday’s decision striking down abortion restrictions in Louisiana was perhaps the strongest signal yet that efforts to force the
reconsideration of divisive cultural issues would perhaps be more difficult than some conservatives once hoped. Trump has cast the
decisions as a personal rebuke — “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” he
asked his Twitter followers earlier this month — and has pledged to provide another list of conservative jurists he would
consider for the high court if elected to another term. That is almost certainly likely to include Amy Coney Barrett, the federal appeals court
judge who has appeared on Trump’s previous lists and was a runner-up in his two previous nomination contests. If nominated and confirmed,
she would become the fourth woman on the court and the only sitting female justice nominated by a Republican. In conversations about the
Supreme Court, Trump has said that nominating a female justice could help improve his standing among
moderate white women, among whom support for Trump is eroding, according to people familiar with the matter. Recent losses
While this month’s rulings on immigration, abortion and LGBTQ rights were disappointing for conservatives, they
have not proved overly concerning to the President, according to people who have spoken to him about the issue. Instead,
Trump has privately suggested there is a political upside in the losses: bolstering his argument for another four years in office, when more
Supreme Court retirements are all but inevitable. “So
far we’re not doing too well,” he said in an interview with the
Christian Broadcasting Network last week. “We’ve had a lot of losses with a court that was supposed to be in our
favor. This is just to show what it means: you’ll probably have a couple of more judges in the next four years. It
could even be more than that, could be three or four. If you have a radical left group of judges, religion, I think, will be almost wiped out at
America.” Still, Trump’s muted response to a ruling that extended workplace protections to LGBTQ Americans
was reflective of the White House’s general wariness at speaking out too forcefully on a matter where views have shifted
dramatically over the past decade. Trump said only he would “live with” the decision. That one of his own appointees,
Justice Neil Gorsuch, ruled against his administration in the case seemed more troubling to Trump than the decision itself, according to people
familiar with his reaction. “I was surprised,” Trump said of Gorsuch’s position in the interview with CBN. Trump has not forgotten that during his
nomination process, Gorsuch was critical of the President’s attacks on the judiciary. That caused Trump to question his
loyalty and, at one point, ask whether he could withdraw his name from consideration. An election-year Supreme Court vacancy would electrify
the still-nascent presidential campaign, with Democrats likely insisting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell adhere to the same terms he
established in 2016, when he prevented Merrick Garland, then-President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia, from
being considered, saying whomever was elected should be responsible for filling the opening. McConnell said in February that,
despite his position four years ago, theGOP-led Senate would fill a vacancy this year, arguing the situation is
different now because because the Senate and the White House are controlled by the same party
Republican voters have long been motivated by the Supreme Court in a way Democrats have not. Trump
has seized on the issue, claiming his rival Joe Biden would nominate radical judges out of step with the country. “These horrible &
politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are
proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives,” Trump tweeted shortly after a decision was handed down
rejecting his attempt to end the DACA program. “We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else.
Vote Trump 2020!”

Recent rulings have eroded Trump’s faith in the Court – another liberal ruling would cement
his agenda to pack the courts.
Samuels ‘6/18 [Brett; reporter for The Hill; 6-18-2020; "Trump calls for 'new justices' on Supreme Court
after unfavorable rulings"; The Hill; https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/503413-trump-calls-
for-new-justices-on-supreme-court-after-unfavorable; Accessed 6-24-2020; AH]

President Trump on Thursday escalated his criticism of the Supreme Court after a pair of rulings this week
against his administration, calling for new justices to be appointed and pledging to release a new list of potential
nominees ahead of November's presidential election. "The recent Supreme Court decisions, not only on DACA, Sanctuary
Cities, Census, and others, tell you only one thing, we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court," Trump
tweeted just hours after the court ruled against his move to rescind deportation protections for young undocumented immigrants. In a
separate tweet, Trump said he would release a list of potential Supreme Court nominees by Sept. 1, similar to
the one he published during the 2016 campaign that won over support of skeptical conservatives. "If given the opportunity, I will only choose
from this list, as in the past, a Conservative Supreme Court Justice," Trump tweeted. "Based on decisions being rendered now, this list is more
important than ever before (Second Amendment, Right to Life, Religous Liberty, etc.) — VOTE 2020!" Trump's
tweets seized on
frustration among many conservatives after two high-profile Supreme Court decisions this week that
went against the administration's wishes and signaled the president may try to make the courts a key
issue once again in the 2020 race. The Supreme Court on Monday ruled, 6-3, that employees cannot be
fired for being gay or transgender. The administration had supported the employers ahead of that decision, arguing that the Civil
Rights Act does not cover sexual orientation or gender identity. On Thursday, the court ruled, 5-4, that Trump had illegally
ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In both cases, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with
the court's four liberal justices. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, sided with the majority in Monday's ruling and wrote the majority
opinion. Thecourt has ruled in favor of Trump on a number of key legal issues. Prior court rulings have
allowed Trump to use military funding for his border wall and upheld a number of controversial policies
that restrict immigration into the United States. Thursday's direct criticism of the courts and pledge to make it more
conservative mirrors Trump's 2016 strategy, when his campaign sought to use the courts as a central issue to win over
conservatives turned off by the candidate's rhetoric. The strategy proved effective, as exit polls showed the vacancy left by the late Justice
Antonin Scalia was among the most important factors for Trump voters. The president and his aides have consistently highlighted Trump's
appointment of conservative judges as one of his most notable accomplishments. Trump has appointed
two Supreme Court
justices during his first term. Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed in 2017, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed
in 2018 after a hostile nomination process.

Empirics prove partisan and activist rulings spark mass judicial confirmations --
particularly true for criminal justice.
Copland and Mangual ’19 [James and Rafael; Winter 2019; Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute
and Director of Legal Policy, J.D. and M.B.A. from Yale; Fellow and Deputy Director of Legal Policy, J.D.
from DePaul University; City Journal, “Toward a Less Dangerous Judicial Branch,” https://www.city-
journal.org/html/toward-less-dangerous-judicial-branch-16471.html; RP]

But even as Supreme Court confirmation fights became rare, the Court itself grew more active—and
controversial. Most tragically, the Court refused to enforce postwar legislation and constitutional amendments designed to ensure newly freed
slaves’ civil and voting rights. (Congress offered little pushback, soon giving up on Reconstruction.) Beginning in the 1890s, as populist and then
progressive movements led Congress to enact more sweeping laws governing economic concerns, the Supreme Court began striking some of
them down—either as outside Congress’s power to regulate commerce or under property-rights or liberty-of-contract rationales. After the
Court overturned key legislative planks of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, an infuriated Roosevelt introduced the
Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which would have packed the Supreme Court with more favorable
justices. Roosevelt’s bill was not enacted, but he prevailed in another way. In the “switch in time that saved nine,” a five-justice Court
majority reversed its earlier jurisprudence and upheld the state of Washington’s minimum-wage law (West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 1937). That
summer, the first Court vacancy in Roosevelt’s tenure opened up. As
Roosevelt began filling seats, the Court’s
jurisprudence shifted. By 1943, FDR had nominated all but one of the Court’s sitting justices, and the Court had
enshrined a presumption of constitutionality for economic legislation and stretched the scope of Congress’s power to regulate interstate
commerce beyond recognition. And the Court’s deference to the elected branches wasn’t limited to the economic sphere; it upheld the
Roosevelt administration’s wartime internment of more than 100,000 individuals of Japanese descent, including American citizens, in
Korematsu v. United States (1944). Soon, however, the
Supreme Court began reasserting itself over the political
branches, state and federal. Initially, the renewed Court action involved a long-overdue reversal of its earlier
jurisprudence gutting civil rights for blacks—most famously, in its 1954 school-desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka, Kansas. But in short order, the Court began assuming authority over many other disputes previously
relegated to the political process. Over a ten-year period beginning in the early 1960s, the Court aggressively reshaped
state criminal procedures; significantly scaled back expressions of religion in public schools; and even (for a time) forbade
capital punishment for all crimes, notwithstanding express language contemplating such penalties in the text of the Constitution. In
1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Court found a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy in the Constitution. Roe’s author, Justice Harry Blackmun, had
been President Richard’s Nixon’s third-choice nominee for the Court in 1970; the
Democrat-led Senate had scuttled Nixon’s
first two picks, the first partisan rejections of a Supreme Court nomination in almost nine decades. While
progressives had opposed the Supreme Court when it overrode economic legislation on constitutional grounds,
conservative voices emerged as critics of the new judicial activism. Yale Law professor Alexander Bickel defended
Brown but began calling for “judicial restraint”; he pointed to the “countermajoritarian difficulty” of resolving contested policy
questions through the unelected judiciary. Bickel’s thinking would influence his Yale Law colleague Robert Bork, who, along with Harvard Law
professor Raoul Berger, developed an affirmative methodology for conservatives to approach the countermajoritarian difficulty—namely,
striking down statutes as unconstitutional only when warranted, based on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. President
Reagan’s nomination of Bork to the Supreme Court sparked the modern judicial confirmation wars. The
Democrats had retaken the Senate in the 1986 midterm election. Senator Ted Kennedy thundered on the Senate floor that “Robert Bork’s
America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could
break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, [and] schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution.” Bork’s nomination was defeated, and
Reagan was able to win confirmation only for his third-choice pick, Anthony Kennedy, whom Brett Kavanaugh has now replaced. Four years
after the Bork nomination, Democrats rallied again, this time to stop President George H. W. Bush’s nomination
of Clarence Thomas, and fell just short: Thomas was confirmed by a 52–48 vote, in part based on the support of
several Southern Democrats, including both from his home state of Georgia. With Democrats still controlling Senate majorities,
Republicans largely supported President Bill Clinton’s nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (three votes against) and Stephen Breyer
(nine votes against). But the comity didn’t last. Republicans controlled both the Senate and the White House in 2005, when George
W. Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to be chief and associate justice, respectively; most Senate Democrats
opposed Roberts, and 40 of 44 Democrats opposed Alito—including 25 who supported an attempted filibuster to deny his nomination a
vote, among them future president Obama. Obama’s subsequent nominees to the Court in the summers of 2009 and 2010, Sonia Sotomayor
and Elena Kagan, did not prompt any reciprocal attempted filibuster from then-minority Senate Republicans, though his selections won the
support of only nine of 40 and five of 41 members of the GOP caucus, respectively. But with Republicans back in the majority when Obama
tapped Judge Garland for the Court in 2016, at the beginning of a presidential election year, the Senate refused to act on the nomination. It’s
hard to see how to break the partisan impasse the next time a Supreme Court vacancy emerges when the
Senate and president are of different parties. But unlike in the early days of the republic, when the Court almost never overturned
legislative actions, the stakes are massive. Conservatives were understandably worried that replacing Scalia with
Garland would jeopardize key constitutional liberties, given that Democrat-appointed justices dissented from recent decisions
upholding the central concerns of the First and Second Amendments (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McDonald v. City of
Chicago, each in 2010). Progressives
are understandably worried that the Court’s decisions upholding abortion
rights and race-based affirmative action could be jeopardized by a more conservative Court.
 2NC -- Link -- Policing
Recent protests sparked liberal momentum for racial justice – the aff’s restriction on
policing is a win
NYT ‘20 – (Catie Edmonson, “House Passes Sweeping Policing Bill Targeting Racial Bias and Use of
Force,” 6/25/20, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/us/politics/house-police-overhaul-bill.html)//ly

The House on Thursday passed an expansive policing overhaul bill aimed at combating racial discrimination
and excessive use of force in law enforcement, as Democrats sought to respond to a nationwide outcry
for racial justice and pushed through legislation that is doomed in the Republican-controlled Senate . The
bipartisan vote was 236-181 to approve the measure, the most sweeping federal intervention into law enforcement in years . It would
eliminate legal protections that shield police officers from lawsuits, make it easier to prosecute them for
wrongdoing, impose a new set of restrictions on the use of deadly force, and effectively ban the use of
chokeholds. But passage of the legislation, introduced as a response to the killings of black Americans
across the country and a wave of protests that have followed, only underscored the depth of the
stalemate in Congress over how to bring about law enforcement changes that both parties say are needed. Republicans have
said the bill is a federal overreach into policing that will never pass the Senate, and the White House
has threatened a veto. Its approval came the day after Senate Democrats blocked a Republican effort to
advance a much narrower bill that would encourage police departments to revise their practices, but
not mandate any changes. That move all but extinguished the hope that Congress will be able to pass legislation this year addressing
systemic racism in law enforcement, almost certainly shifting the debate over race and policing to the campaign trail, where the two parties will
blame each other for the demise of the effort. Still on Thursday,
Democrats called the passage of their bill an important
message at a time of upheaval over the treatment of black Americans by the police . Speaking from the Capitol
steps, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday that the vote would serve as a pledge to the American public: “Never again.”
 2NC -- Link -- AT: Packing Fails
Link defense isn’t enough -- failed packing prompts court timidity and rollback.
Zeitz ’17 [Joshua; February 14; Author, taught American History and Politics at Cambridge University
and Princeton University; Politico, “How Donald Trump Could Pressure the Supreme Court,”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/how-donald-trump-could-pressure-the-supreme-
court-214778; RP]

The “horse-and-buggy” press conference was just the opening shot in a longer battle. In 1937, on the heels of winning a
landslide re-election victory, Roosevelt attempted to pack the high court with additional justices and thereby
achieve a pro-New Deal majority. The maneuver generated a powerful backlash, giving rise to a congressional opposition coalition
of Southern Democrats and Republicans and costing Roosevelt a working majority in Congress. So the story goes.

For President Donald Trump, who has in recent weeks crossed several lines in his denunciation of federal judges who suspended his travel ban,
the standard narrative seems to offer a clear warning: tangle with the judiciary at great political risk.

But that’s not all that history suggests. True, Roosevelt’s unsuccessful assault on the judiciary catalyzed a
powerful opposition bloc. But it also cowed key members of the court, paving the way for a complete
reversal of prevailing jurisprudence, to FDR’s benefit. Judges enjoy lifetime tenure, but they are not
immune to political pressure. In 1937, the court accommodated the president in the interest of saving the
institution. The same could just as easily happen today.
 2NC -- Link -- AT: McConnell Won’t Push
Itʻs McConnell’s top priority
Zhouli 18 – staff writer at Vox (Li, "Democrats’ very limited options for stopping Mitch McConnell’s
judicial onslaught," Vox, https://www.vox.com/2018/11/14/18016022/mcconnell-judicial-nominees-
democrats 11-14-2018)// gcd

Republicans have hung on to their Senate majority, which means Mitch McConnell can spend the next
two years jamming through as many judicial nominees as possible. It’s a plan he hasn’t been shy about.
“You know what my top priority is? It’s the judiciary,” he said during a press conference last week, while outlining upcoming
priorities. “We intend to keep confirming as many as we possibly can as long as we can do it.” The Senate’s approval of judicial
nominees is one rare issue on which the Republican conference has been able to remain united. With the
narrow majority they’ve had, the party has needed every Republican vote in order to move pretty much anything
— but with a handful of troublesome Republicans gone and the potential expansion of their majority as Florida and Mississippi’s Senate seats
get resolved, confirming more judges should only get easier for them. Democrats say they’ve done their best to capitalize
on procedural tactics and other strategies in order to block nominees, but at least one progressive activist thinks there’s plenty of room for
them to be more aggressive. Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice — an activist group that was vocal in opposing Brett Kavanaugh — thinks
Democrats need to stop making deals with Republicans when it comes to approving judicial nominees in bulk, for starters. (Democrats had
previously signed on to two deals that enabled Republicans to fast-track 15 judicial nominees as a package.) “The act of continuing
to
grant consent for huge packages of nominees allows McConnell in the aggregate to plow through more nominations
than he otherwise could,” Fallon says, adding that Democrats also have the opportunity to use more of the leverage they have on
issues like funding legislation in order to obstruct questionable nominees. Given Republicans’ continued dominance in the upper chamber,
however, Democrats only have so many limited options . Republicans have changed Senate rules and
norms, making it easier to confirm their picks A big reason Republicans are now able to barrel through with their nominees is
changes to Senate rules (a process that Democrats kick-started). Tweaks to the Senate’s filibuster rules — shifts that were
initiated by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid after Republicans refused to let President Obama’s judicial nominees through — along with
the erosion of other informal congressional checks have rendered Democrats increasingly powerless to
express their opposition. Today, Republicans only need a simple majority (50 votes plus Vice President Mike Pence as a
tiebreaker) to move through their nominations. And they’ve been more than happy to take advantage of this.
 2NC -- Link -- AT: Trump Won’t Push
Trump pushes court packing.
Millhiser ’17 [Ian; November 17; Columnist and author; ThinkProgress, “Chairman of conservative
group with major role in picking Trump judicial nominees proposes court-packing scheme,”
https://thinkprogress.org/federalist-society-chairman-court-packing-454b5047bea1/; RP]

In a memo to Congress, the founder and board chair of America’s most influential conservative legal society proposed
a massive court-packing plan that would enable President Donald Trump to fill the judiciary with hundreds of
new judges. The memo, co-authored by law professor and Federalist Society founder Steven G. Calabresi, proposes a monumental expansion
of the federal judiciary. It also is not subtle about its motivations. As the memo states in its introduction, a major purpose of this
court-packing scheme is “undoing the judicial legacy of President Barack Obama.” The Federalist Society is a highly
influential conservative legal group that plays a significant role in selecting Trump’s judicial nominees. If
Calabresi’s court-packing plan were to become law, the Federalist Society would likely have the opportunity to select hundreds of new judges.
As a candidate, Trump
told Brietbart radio that if he is elected “we’re going to have great judges, conservative, all
picked by the Federalist Society.” The society’s executive vice president, Leonard Leo, plays an especially large role in selecting
Supreme Court nominees in Republican administrations. As the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin wrote, “during the Administration of George W.
Bush, Leo… played a crucial part in the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Now that Gorsuch has been confirmed, Leo is
responsible, to a considerable extent, for a third of the Supreme Court.”

At worst, he’ll just outsource to external organizations that funnel conservatives.

Savage ’17 [Charlie; November 11; Pulitzer Prize-winning Journalist and Washington Correspondent;
New York Times, “Trump Is Rapidly Reshaping the Judiciary. Here’s How.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/us/politics/trump-judiciary-appeals-courts-conservatives.html;
RP]

As a result, Mr. Trump is poised to bring the conservative legal movement, which took shape in the 1980s in
reaction to decades of liberal rulings on issues like the rights of criminal suspects and of women who want abortions, to a
new peak of influence over American law and society. “What makes this a unique opportunity in modern history is
the sheer number of vacancies, the number of potential vacancies because of the aging bench, and the existence of a
president who really cares about this issue in his gut,” said Leonard A. Leo, an informal adviser to Mr. Trump on courts who is
the executive vice president of the Federalist Society. Liberals have accused Mr. Trump of outsourcing his nominations
process to the Federalist Society. But two administration officials argued that this claim misunderstands how the conservative legal
movement has matured as the generation of Republican lawyers shaped by reading the originalist dissents of Justice Scalia and by the bitter
1987 fight over Judge Robert H. Bork’s failed Supreme Court nomination has come of age. Mr. McGahn and nearly all the lawyers
working for him at the White House are longtime society participants, so relationships built on the network of like-minded
conservatives saturate discussions of potential nominees from the inside, they said. Mr. Trump has also had help from the Senate
Judiciary Committee chairman, Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, in lowering impediments and keeping the
confirmation assembly line moving.
2NC Internal-Link
 2NC -- IL -- Abortion
They’ll overturn Roe.
Lithwick ’16 [Dahlia; November 3; Journalist, writes about courts and the law; Slate, “Roe v. Wade Is on
the Ballot,”
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/11/roe_v_wade_is_on_the_ballot_this
_election_day.html]

And now ourillusions: We all like to think that Supreme Court decisions are sealed in amber, protected for
the ages, which leads us to downplay the importance of the future makeup of the court. In a June Pew survey,
the question of Supreme Court appointments was the 11th most important issue in the election among Clinton voters. Abortion was the 14th
out of 14. We put that fight behind us last June right? We all also like to think that the Supreme Court is a magical entity, wherein—regardless
of the circumstances in the rest of the country, like maybe having a president who has said there should be “punishment” for women who have
abortions—justice rains down like manna. Senate Republicans are paradoxically victims of that same flawed logic. Their
overt hints that
no nominee put forth during a potential Hillary Clinton presidency will ever get a hearing, and that ending
the next four years with a court of six or seven justices would be a political triumph, showcases their
conviction that the courts are a kind of religious national ornament. The new theory seems to be that the
Constitution interprets and executes itself.
Those who stopped paying attention to the high court after the pop-up abortion victory last June are succumbing to precisely the same illusion:
It hardly matters that we—as women—dodged a reproductive-rights bullet last spring, if we are about to be flattened by a reproductive-rights
tank. And make no mistake, the current GOP promises to obstruct any and every justice named by a President Clinton, are an oncoming Panzer.
If you were afraid for women’s health last spring, you should be flipping out right now. (And you should have been afraid last spring.) Because
everything that was on the line in the two women’s health appeals at the court last term are still on the line today. Except now it’s not up to the
court to decide if women and their bodies matter. It’s up to voters across the country and whom we elect to the Senate.

Why? At the most basic level, Republican-dominated state legislatures have continued to press for more and more onerous abortion
restrictions, including burial and cremation requirements for abortions and miscarriages and the return of spousal consent laws. Without fully
staffed lower courts to enforce the Supreme Court’s framework from the Whole Women’s Health decision, those patently unconstitutional laws
will continue to proliferate. At the highest level, the
GOP’s current plan seems to be to starve the court of
replacement justices until there’s a Republican president to nominate justices that would overturn Roe.
This is essentially what Sen. Richard Burr was indicating when he said this week, “if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do
everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.”

Those intent on shuttering the courts won’t stop at blocking some Supreme Court nominees, though. If they can block all progressive outcomes
by preserving judicial emergencies and open seats in the lower courts—something Burr bragged about having done for the past 11 years—they
will do that as well. Especially if they face no consequences at the polls. Senate Republicans aren’t just threatening such conduct; they are
openly campaigning on it. Lower court vacancies mean fewer judges, and a decline in access to justice for everyone.

Please consider this as well: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. Anthony Kennedy is 80. Stephen Breyer is 78. Right there you have three members of
the five-justice majority in last year’s abortion case. The idea that this case is safe from imminent review and reversal is comforting, but
profoundly untrue. If a President Trump were allowed to fill the vacant Scalia seat and the seat of any one of those justices should they leave
the bench in the next four years, Roe v. Wade would likely be done. And if Senate Republicans can effectively block any and all replacements for
the current vacancy and any new ones until a Republican is in office, the outcome will be the same.

Donald Trump has promised to seat only jurists who would overturn Roe. Indeed, Trump is counting on
pro-life voters who would otherwise loathe him to vote for him only because of the Supreme Court. With
a few exceptions, including notably Ross Douthat writing in the New York Times on Wednesday, that issue alone is deemed worth casting a vote
for an unqualified, incurious bully.

It’s also important to note, again, that this new absolute obstructionism on the Senate side is not some standard operating procedure by both
sides. Until recently, most U.S. Senators felt at least some compulsion to vote for qualified jurists, even if they were nominated by a president
of the opposing party. Certainly many in the Senate have objected to some qualified jurists over the years—including Obama when he was
representing Illinois in that body. But the novel principle that—as Douthat espoused in a tweet on Tuesday—GOP obstruction happens because
“current liberal judicial theory is inherently illegitimate,” well, that is code for “no jurist named by a Democrat will ever be legitimate.”
You can pretend it’s about “judicial theory,” but please note that nobody has been saying a word—pro or con—about Garland’s “judicial
theory.” This is about the presumed illegitimacy of Democratic presidents and the presumptive illegitimacy of every last one of the judges they
select. It’s not even really about that, ultimately.
It’s about the triumph of raw power over actual governance, and a
sacrifice of precious government institutions to the need to win at all costs.

Right-wing expansion of the judiciary ends Roe and sparks constitutional crisis.
Richter and Ring ‘4 [Nathan and Priscilla; May 25; Members of the PAW Foundation, interviewing
Ralph Neas, a Professor of Law at Harvard University; People for American Way Foundation, “Americans
“Courting Disaster” with Next Supreme Court Justices,” https://www.pfaw.org/press-
releases/americans-courting-disaster-with-next-supreme-court-justices/; RP]
At Stake With Next President’s Nominees to High Court: Civil Rights, Privacy, Clean Air & Water, Religious Liberty and Other Rights and Legal
Protections

With crucial Supreme Court rulings continuing to be decided by narrow margins, and with a Supreme Court
vacancy long overdue, the next President is likely to nominate new Supreme Court justices who will have a huge
and long-lasting impact on constitutional rights, liberties and laws, according to a report released today by People For the
American Way Foundation. Courting Disaster 2004 documents that additional Supreme Court justices in the mold of current Justices
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have a devastating impact on civil rights, privacy and reproductive
rights, the First Amendment, environmental protection, and much more.
“Courting Disaster makes it clear just how much is at stake with the next Supreme Court justices,” said People For the American Way
Foundation President Ralph G. Neas. “Most Americans have no idea how important the Supreme Court is to their daily lives – or that so
many basic legal and constitutional protections are hanging by a one- or two-vote thread.”
Neas noted that it has been ten years since the last Supreme Court confirmation, the longest interval between vacancies since 1823. “Over the
past half century, there has been on the average one Supreme Court nomination every two years,” Neas said. “We are long overdue. In fact,
over the next few years, we could have multiple vacancies, comparable to the four vacancies between 1969 and 1972
and the five between 1986 and 1991. That would define American law for a generation or more.”

Those multiple vacancies would occur in the context of an aggressive right-wing campaign to create a
federal judiciary dominated by a legal theory that would overturn many of the legal and social justice gains
of the past 70 years. Proponents of a new “federalism” are pushing to have the courts return the nation to a pre-
New Deal legal era when states’ rights and property rights were given greater constitutional importance than
the protection of individuals’ rights and liberties. On the Supreme Court, the most aggressive promoters of this theory
are Justices Scalia and Thomas, who President Bush has said will be his models for future high court nominees.
“The Supreme Court justices appointed by the President elected in November will determine what the law of the land will be for decades,” said
Neas.

Courting Disaster documents that more than 100 Supreme Court precedents would be overturned with the addition or
one or two additional Scalia-Thomas-minded justices. For example:

 Privacy: If
the Court overturns Roe v. Wade, as Scalia and Thomas are eager to do, it would end a
constitutional right to reproductive freedom and could endanger other rights that depend on the
right to privacy, including the most intensely personal healthcare decisions ranging from contraception to “living wills” that
people create to have their wishes carried out in the event of incapacitation.
 Civil Rights: In their written opinions, Scalia and Thomas have advocated extreme positions, including an interpretation criticized by
four other justices as so “radical” that it would require the overturning or reconsideration of at least 28 Supreme Court decisions
holding that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should be interpreted broadly to prohibit racial discrimination in all aspects of voting.
Overruling last year’s Hibbs decision would make it impossible for state employees to obtain effective relief for violations of their
rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Overturning the 2003 Lawrence decision would allow gay people to be jailed for
 private sexual activity between consenting adults. Overturning the 2003 Grutter decision would ban affirmative action in higher
education.
 Religious Liberty: Scalia and Thomas would hand the far right a victory they have sought for the past two decades and more – by
dismantling the wall between church and state. A Court with just one or two more far right justices would allow government-
sponsored prayer at school events and in other settings, and would even allow school district lines to be drawn so as to make one
religious sect dominant.
 Workers’ Rights: A Scalia-Thomas Court would sharply reduce workers’ rights by, for example, eliminating protections against firing
government workers for belonging to the wrong political party or for a private comment to a co-worker. A reversal of the Barnhart v.
Peabody Coal Co. decision could jeopardize the retirement benefits of up to 10,000 coal industry retirees.
 Environmental Protection: A Scalia-Thomas majority would make it much more difficult, and in some cases impossible, to protect our
natural heritage. Such a court would prevent the federal government from overruling state agencies that fail to effectively stop air or
water pollution or from stopping the destruction of endangered species on private land, and in the name of property rights severely
limit even temporary government rules to protect the environment.
 Access to Justice: Reversal of the 2003 Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington decision would eliminate a key source of funding
for legal assistance for the poor. A Scalia-Thomas court would also allow legal services lawyers to be forbidden from raising
challenges to welfare laws.

The publication of Courting Disaster 2004 is part of a broader public education campaign around the future of the Supreme Court. Courting
Disaster was originally published in May 2000 after a six-month-long examination of all the concurring and dissenting opinions of Antonin Scalia
and Clarence Thomas. The newly updated report includes Supreme Court decisions through May 1, 2004. More recently, the Supreme Court’s
5-4 decision in Tennessee v. Lane narrowly protected the right of disabled persons to sue state governments for damages for denying them
access to court houses over a vigorous “states’ rights” dissent including Scalia and Thomas.

“The next President and Senate will hold our future in their hands,” said Neas. “No matter who is elected
this fall, we will urge the President to nominate only individuals who demonstrate a commitment to
preserving privacy and civil rights, protecting individual rights from abuse by corporations or the government, safeguarding the
environment, and upholding the social justice progress made over the last 65 years. And we will urge Senators to fulfill their
responsibility to be independent defenders of the Constitution.”

Continued Neas, “We want all Americans, regardless of party affiliation, liberal or conservative, to understand what is at
stake. We want all Americans to know that many freedoms they take for granted are being eroded, or are protected by
fragile one- or two- vote majorities on the Supreme Court. We want them to know that as a country we are courting
constitutional disaster.”
 2NC -- IL -- Calabresi
Democrats retain a majority even after Trump packs vacancies -- the Calabresi
proposal flips all twelve circuits AND eighty percent of the appellate bench.
Primus ’17 [Richard; November 24; Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, J.D. from Yale
University; Harvard Law Review, “Rulebooks, Playgrounds, and Endgames: A Constitutional Analysis of
the Calabresi-Hirji Judgeship Proposal,” https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/rulebooks-playgrounds-and-
endgames-a-constitutional-analysis-of-the-calabresi-hirji-judgeship-proposal/; RP]
I

The Calabresi-Hirji paper is styled a Memorandum to the Senate and the House of Representatives. It recommends that
Congress create, at a minimum, 61 new circuit judgeships (21). Ideally, however, Congress would create
many more, increasing the total number of active circuit judges to something between 2.5 and three times
the current number (14). That would mean creating 250 or 300 new circuit judgeships.

In either its weaker or its stronger form, the

proposal would give Republican-appointed judges dominant control of
the lower courts. According to the paper, there are now 90 active Court of Appeals judges appointed by
Democratic Presidents and 71 appointed by Republican Presidents, with 11 outstanding vacancies. If one
assumes that President Trump will fill the vacancies, the numbers would soon be 90 and 82, with further variations
as judges leave the bench. At the very least, the Calabresi-Hirji proposal would give the President another 61 circuit
positions to fill, thus shifting the balance to 143 appointed by Republican Presidents and 90 by Democratic
Presidents—a dramatic change even before further change during the Trump Presidency. If the paper’s optimal
recommendation were implemented, President Trump would have an additional 250 to 300 circuit judgeships to
fill. Trump nominees would be an absolute majority of all circuit judges, and judges appointed by
Republican Presidents would account for maybe 80% of the federal appellate bench.

The express motive for the proposal is to change the ideological and/or partisan composition of the judiciary.
Part I of the paper is an Introduction; Part II is called “Undoing President Barack Obama’s Judicial Legacy” (1). It’s not complicated. Obama was
president for eight years and appointed a lot of judges. The federal bench is majority-Democratic after Obama’s two terms, as it was majority-
Republican after George W. Bush’s. If matters took their usual course, there might again soon be a Republican-appointed majority, and almost
certainly so if Trump were to serve two terms. But the paper argues against waiting until normal attrition does its work. In the paper’s view, the
judiciary as currently composed is heedless of the rule of law. More conservative judges are needed quickly so that the rule of law will be
restored.

The Calabresi plan flips every circuit and ends judicial independence.
Millhiser ’17 [Ian; November 17; Columnist and author; ThinkProgress, “Chairman of conservative
group with major role in picking Trump judicial nominees proposes court-packing scheme,”
https://thinkprogress.org/federalist-society-chairman-court-packing-454b5047bea1/; RP]

The ambition of Calabresi’s memo is, at times, staggering. At one point he proposes doubling or tripling the
number of federal appellate court judgeships — claiming that “the optimal number of active circuit court
judgeships is at least double the current number of 167 authorized judgeships… and more likely between 2.5x and 3x
the current number.” He also proposes adding 185 trial judges to the 673 currently authorized by federal law,
though he also acknowledges that such a grand expansion of the federal judicial may not be politically feasible. The memo also seems to advise
members of Congress to argue that this court-packing plan is necessary for politically neutral reasons, such as overworked courts. After a
section captioned “Undoing President Barack Obama’s Judicial Legacy,” Calabresi follows up with this paragraph: One of the most
straightforward ways for Republicans to address this problem is to make the case for a
new judgeship bill that would enable the
President to appoint a sufficient number of new judges that would help to change the balance of power on each
of the circuit courts back to a conservative majority. This memorandum helps make that case by focusing on the problem of
the federal courts’ caseloads and unpublished opinions. Calabresi’s court-packing scheme would be a bookend to a similar
scheme that gave Republicans control of the Supreme Court. After the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia left
an evenly divided Court, Senate Republicans effectively reduced the number of justices to eight for more than a year by refusing to confirm
anyone to fill the vacant seat until after President Obama left office. “This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared. Before Election Day, when it appeared that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would be the next
president, some Senate Republicans indicated that they would also refuse to confirm anyone Clinton nominated to fill the Supreme Court
vacancy as well. Should Calabresi’s
plan move forward, it could easily lead to the end of an independent judiciary in
the United States. Not only would the plan give Trump — and Trump’s allies in the Federalist Society — tremendous
influence over the courts, but it would also open the floodgates to retaliatory efforts by Democrats.
 2NC -- IL -- Climate
Court packing won’t disrupt the liberal balance of current climate policy now -- any
further slant towards conservatism lets him tip critical appeals courts in the ninth and
tenth circuit which are driving litigation.
Bravender and Waldman ’17 [Robin and Scott; November 27; Deputy Editor of Climate Wire, citing
the head of the Judging the Environment Project and Richard Lazarus, an environmental law expert and
Professor of Law at Harvard University; Award-winning reporter, M.A. in Journalism from Syracuse
University; Scientific American, “Trump Races to Pick Judges Who Oversee Environment Cases,”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-races-to-pick-judges-who-oversee-environment-
cases/; RP]

Can Trump Tip Ideology? With

widespread vacancies in federal courts at the end of Obama's term and more
openings since Trump took office, the administration has the potential to remake the federal judiciary
and shape numerous legal decisions related to climate and environmental policy. Trump has already appointed
eight appellate court judges, a rapid pace that's been fueled by the GOP-controlled Senate and pressure from
conservative advocacy groups. The administration has focused on longevity over experiences in some cases, ensuring that the judges
would shape key legal decisions for years. Brett Talley, 36, was nominated for a federal district court in Alabama even though he has virtually no
trial experience. The
swift pace of confirmations is in large part due to a rule change enacted by Democrats
when they controlled the Senate and were flustered by efforts to stymie Obama's court picks. In 2013, the Democrats
enacted the so-called nuclear option, requiring 51 votes instead of 60 to clear executive branch and some judicial
nominees. Another rule shift in the Senate could signal that Republicans are open to an even quicker approval process that also strips
Democrats of what's been their primary leverage in blocking court appointees. The so-called blue slip process allows lawmakers to weigh in on
judicial nominees in their states. It was kept in place during the Obama administration, by agreement of Republicans and Democrats. But earlier
this month, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) threw out the process for some judicial nominees after Sen. Al Franken (D-
Minn.) blocked a Trump nominee from his state. While the pace of appointments is significant, it would likely take
years for the Trump administration to equal the influence of the Obama administration, said Jonathan Adler, director
of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. He noted that the Obama
administration appointed about 40 percent of the federal judiciary in active service. He said if Trump is president
for eight years, he could have a similar influence. But it will take years for Trump to tip the ideological
balance of the courts, he said. "What's interesting here is that this administration is moving more aggressively and
more quickly than administrations usually do at the beginning of their terms, and that may be a cause or a consequence of the
fact that the administration has not been able to do much else, certainly not legislatively," he said. "There is every reason to think this will
be a lasting legacy of the Trump administration, but it takes awhile for that effect to really manifest itself."
Still, when Trump was inaugurated, there were more than 110 vacancies on the federal courts, representing
about 12 percent of the total judiciary, and the most for any incoming president since Bill Clinton took office, according to Adler.
For now, the effect of Trump's appointments on environmental policy is limited because his
appointments have not tipped the balance of liberal and conservative judges in any of the key appeals
courts, including the 9th Circuit in California that encompasses Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Arizona,
Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Trump has also not tipped the balance in the 10th Circuit, where federal
land cases might be heard, and which includes Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma. The administration has
nominated a judge to the D.C. Circuit, which is tremendously influential in federal policy, but that move would replace a
conservative with a conservative. The balance on that court still favors Democratic nominees, who make up
seven active members of the court compared with four Republicans. Any shift in the courts toward a more
conservative bent on environmental policy would reset the balance of power away from the federal
government and back toward the states where it belongs, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage
Foundation, which has been instrumental in helping the Trump administration shape the courts. He said EPA and other federal
agencies that set environmental policy have exceeded the bounds of their authority in recent years and that the
federal role has overshadowed the state role in environmental policy , where the two should be equal. He said Trump's
judicial appointments will bring the federal government back inside the bounds of legislation passed by
Congress.

Courts solve warming -- litigation makes Paris enforceable and forces quick action
based on scientific timelines -- judges will rule in favor now.
Estrin ’16 [David; May 2016; Canada’s Senior Environmental Law Specialist, adjunct Professor at
Osgoode Hall Law School; Centre for International Governance Innovation, “Limiting Dangerous Climate
Change,” https://issuu.com/cigi/docs/paper_no.101; RP]

Conclusions Although the 2015 Paris Agreement is exceptionally aspirational and signals increased recognition of the
need for various governmental and private sector measures to limit global temperature increases and
consequent impacts to the planet and its peoples, the agreement lacks measures and enforceable means to require
countries to reduce emissions by specific amounts or by any particular deadline. However, individual state responsibility
to effect reductions of domestic emissions remains both a UNFCCC obligation as well as one recognized by international law principles. The
Urgenda, Leghari and Foster decisions demonstrate that citizen suits in domestic courts can result in
potentially effective enforcement of individual state responsibility for limiting emissions and their impacts. And, as
signalled by the other recently filed cases referenced above, there is likely to be continuing and indeed increased
efforts by concerned citizens to use domestic court and human rights tribunals for this purpose. This emerging trend
arises from worried and frustrated citizens who are concluding, as Urgenda attorney Roger Cox did in his book Revolution
Justified,178 that politicians will continue to exhibit systemic ineffectiveness on this issue and, therefore, “only the
courts can save us now” from climate harm. For the reasons discussed above, there are good reasons why many
domestic judges are likely to be favourably disposed to listen attentively to citizen claims for specific emissions
reduction and other climate actions by government. The IPCC’s science reports make clear the urgency of requiring
“dangerous” climate change sources to be abated within a very few years to prevent catastrophic harm. States know the
dangers, but are failing to act in accordance with the science. These circumstances make it more likely that
domestic judges asked by citizens to protect them and their society from harm will be both empathetic to such claims and more
comfortable in judicially reviewing the asserted government inaction. From the statements made by judges in the
Dutch, Pakistan and State of Washington decisions, it can be surmised that they, like many other domestic court judges who hear similar
claims, would prefer to be remembered for being part of the solution to climate change, and not another
roadblock. The increased use of domestic courts and tribunals to require governments to be more responsive in
reducing climate impacts to vulnerable populations would be a crucially significant development in the
governance of climate change.

A strong judicial role overcomes obstructionism and forces sufficient state action on
climate change.
Estrin ’16 [David; May 2016; Canada’s Senior Environmental Law Specialist, adjunct Professor at
Osgoode Hall Law School; Centre for International Governance Innovation, “Limiting Dangerous Climate
Change,” https://issuu.com/cigi/docs/paper_no.101; RP]

Executive Summary For more than two decades, the

world’s nations have collectively recognized their critical
responsibility to avert the catastrophic effects of climate change. Yet despite increasing scientific clarity as
to the urgency of this objective, and more than 20 years of continuous negotiations to reduce carbon emissions
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), states have failed to act on their acknowledged
responsibility: emissions have continued to increase. Most recently, in the December 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, 195
states agreed with the need to limit the average global temperature rise to less than 2°C and preferably to less than
1.5°C, but the same states failed to include specific emission reduction requirements and deadlines necessary to meet
these targets, and instead opted essentially for “best efforts.” This paper focuses on the emerging new role of citizen suits,
domestic courts and human rights commissions in limiting dangerous climate change. Given the failure of
states to stop the almost constant increase in global carbon emissions (and now the worrying practical and legal gaps in the
Paris Agreement), frustrated citizens are increasingly looking to domestic courts to require governments to
mitigate emissions and limit climate harm. This emerging role is demonstrated in three important 2015
decisions: Urgenda from the Netherlands; Leghari from Pakistan; and Foster v Washington Department of Ecology from the
United States. These suits before domestic courts have achieved significant results in the battle against climate change.
Each court found there was a legal duty on the respondent government to rein in carbon emissions or take other
measures to prevent significant climate-related human and civil rights impacts. Also in 2015, the Philippines Human Rights
Commission agreed to investigate and hold hearings as to the responsibility of large international fossil fuel companies for substantial
impairment of human rights in the Philippines caused by extreme weather events. What are the factors that have led, and may
increasingly lead, courtsto act on these citizen complaints? Some key ones are the recent availability of authoritative
climate science that convincingly clarifies why carbon emissions must be urgently limited; and apparent
judicial distress as judges learn that states clearly know the dangers and have committed to act, but are failing to implement
measures necessary to prevent climate chaos. Where a state or subnational government is failing to act with alacrity to prevent such
harm, the circumstances are ripe for domestic judges to require governments to undertake positive actions.
Issuing orders to prevent harm to citizens or impairment of rights is a traditional judicial role. As illustrated by
Urgenda and Leghari, in the face of governmental inaction, domestic judges may well be induced to use and even
adapt traditional domestic legal principles and constitutional rights and to consider international law principles so
as to adjudicate the right of citizens to be protected from climate change impacts. If this emerging trend continues, it
would demonstrate that citizen initiatives are critical in overcoming state inaction, that at least the judicial
branch of government can effectively act on this wicked problem and also remind political leaders that they have
responsibility to do more than continue to spout greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction rhetoric at annual UN meetings in
fashionable locales.
 2NC -- IL -- Democracy
It ensures democratic collapse by accelerating extremist polarization and breaking an
independent judiciary.
Levitsky and Ziblatt ’18 [Steven and Daniel; January 27; Professors of Government at Harvard
University; New York Times, “How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/opinion/sunday/democracy-polarization.html; RP]

President Trump hasn’t destroyed the republic. This should not surprise us. Our democratic institutions are strong.
And Mr. Trump, despite his reckless attacks on democratic norms, is a weak and inept leader. But that doesn’t mean democracy is
safe. The problems we face run deeper than the Trump presidency. While Mr. Trump’s autocratic
impulses have fueled our political system’s mounting crisis, he is as much a symptom as he is a cause of this
crisis. We should not take democracy for granted. There is nothing intrinsic in American culture that immunizes us against its breakdown. Even
our brilliantly designed Constitution cannot, by itself, guarantee democracy’s survival. If it could, then the republic would not have collapsed
into civil war 74 years after its birth. To function well, democratic
constitutions must be reinforced by two basic norms,
or unwritten rules. The first is mutual toleration, according to which politicians accept their opponents as
legitimate. When mutual toleration exists, we recognize that our partisan rivals are loyal citizens who love our country just as we do. The
second norm is forbearance, or self-restraint in the exercise of power. Forbearance is the act of not exercising a legal right. In
politics, it means not deploying one’s institutional prerogatives to the hilt, even if it’s legal to do so. We rarely think about
forbearance in politics, and yet democracy cannot work without it. Consider what American presidents could legally
do under the Constitution. They could pardon anyone they want, whenever they want, undercutting congressional and judicial
oversight. They could pack the courts. With a congressional majority, a president facing an unfriendly Supreme
Court could expand it to 11 or 13 and fill the new seats with allies. Or a president whose agenda is stalled in Congress could
make policy unilaterally, via executive orders or proclamations. The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit these acts. Or consider what
Congress could do. It could, under the Constitution, routinely refuse to fund the government, effectively shutting it down. The Senate could
exploit its right of “advice and consent” to block all of the president’s cabinet nominations. It could prevent the president from filling any
Supreme Court vacancies. And a congressional majority could impeach the president on virtually any grounds. America’s
constitutional
system thus requires forbearance. If our leaders deploy their legal prerogatives without restraint, it could
bring severe dysfunction, and even constitutional crisis. Mark Tushnet, a law professor at Harvard, calls such behavior —
exploiting the letter of the law to undermine its spirit — “constitutional hardball.” Look at any failing democracy and you will
find constitutional hardball. In postwar Argentina, when President Juan Perón encountered Supreme Court
opposition, his congressional allies impeached three of five justices on grounds of “malfeasance” and replaced
them with loyalists. In 2004, when Venezuela’s high court proved too independent, congressional allies of
President Hugo Chávez added 12 seats to the 20-member court and filled them with loyalists . Both Perón’s
and Chávez’s court-packing schemes were legal, but they nevertheless destroyed judicial independence. Norms
of forbearance have not always been strong in the United States: They were weak in the republic’s early years and they unraveled during the
Civil War. But for most of the 20th century, Democrats
and Republicans accepted each other as legitimate and
exercised power with forbearance. There were no partisan impeachments or successful court packing.
Congress routinely funded the government, obstructionist tools like the filibuster were used sparingly, and the Senate used its power of advice
and consent with prudence, routinely confirming qualified nominees. There were instances of executive overreach (Franklin Roosevelt, Richard
Nixon), but the most egregious abuses were checked by Congress and the courts. History suggests, however, that democratic
norms are vulnerable to polarization. Some polarization is healthy, even necessary, for democracy. But extreme
polarization can kill it. When societies divide into partisan camps with profoundly different worldviews,
and when those differences are viewed as existential and irreconcilable, political rivalry can devolve into
partisan hatred. Parties come to view each other not as legitimate rivals but as dangerous enemies. Losing ceases to be an accepted part of
the political process and instead becomes a catastrophe. When that happens, politicians are tempted to abandon forbearance and win at any
cost. If we believe our opponents are dangerous, should we not use any means necessary to stop them? This is how democracy died
in Chile. Before the 1973 coup, Chile was Latin America’s oldest democracy, buttressed by vibrant democratic norms, including a well-
established “culture of compromise.” Chileans liked to say that there was no political disagreement that could not be settled over a bottle of
Chilean cabernet. But beginning in the 1960s, Chile’s culture of compromise was shattered by Cold War polarization. Mutual toleration eroded,
and political parties eschewed forbearance for a “win at all cost” strategy. Chilean democracy fell into a death spiral,
culminating in a bloody coup. (The intervention of the United States accelerated but did not cause this death spiral.) Could it happen
here? It already has. During the 1850s, polarization over slavery undermined America’s democratic norms .
Southern Democrats viewed the antislavery position of the emerging Republican Party as an existential threat. They assailed Republicans as
“traitors to the Constitution” and vowed to “never permit this federal government to pass into the traitorous hands of the Black Republican
Party.” Norm erosion alters the zone of acceptable political behavior. Partisan violence pervaded
Congress. Joanne Freeman, a historian at Yale, counted more than 100 incidents of violence (including fistfights, canings and the pulling of
knives and pistols) on the floor of Congress between 1830 and 1860. Before long, the republic would be broken — and Americans would be
killing one another in the hundreds of thousands. America today is not on the brink of a coup or a civil war. Yet our parties are more polarized
than at any time during the last century. Whereas 50 years ago some 5 percent of either Democrats or Republicans said they would be
displeased if their child married someone from the other party, today 49 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats say so. According
to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 49 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Democrats say the other party makes them “afraid.” This
is not a traditional liberal-conservative divide. People don’t fear and loathe one another over taxes or health care. As political scientists have
shown, the roots of today’s polarization are racial and cultural. Whereas 50 years ago both parties were overwhelmingly white and equally
religious, advances in civil rights, decades of immigration and the migration of religious conservatives to the Republican Party have given rise to
two fundamentally different parties: one that is ethnically diverse and increasingly secular and one that is overwhelmingly white and
predominantly Christian. White Christians are not just any group: They are a once-dominant majority in decline. When a dominant group’s
social status is threatened, racial and cultural differences can be perceived as existential and irreconcilable. The resulting polarization preceded
(indeed, made possible) the Trump presidency, and it is likely to persist after it. Extreme
partisan polarization had already
begun to eviscerate our democratic norms long before Mr. Trump’s election. By the time of Barack Obama’s
presidency, many Republicans had abandoned mutual toleration. Prominent Republicans attacked Mr. Obama and the Democrats as anti-
American. And of course, in 2016, the Republican Party nominated for president a man who questioned Mr. Obama’s citizenship and insisted
that his rival was a criminal. Polarization also encouraged politicians to abandon forbearance, beginning with the
Gingrich-era government shutdowns and the partisan impeachment of Bill Clinton. Other examples include proliferating filibuster use,
congressional refusal to raise the debt limit and President Obama’s use of executive actions to bypass Congress. Perhaps the
most
consequential was the Senate’s refusal to take up Mr. Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the
Supreme Court. Since 1866, every time a president had an opportunity to fill a vacancy before the election of his successor, he was
allowed to do so (though not always on the first try). The Senate’s refusal to even consider an Obama nominee
violated a 150-year-old norm. Democrats are beginning to respond in kind. Their recent filibuster triggering a government shutdown
took a page out of the Gingrich playbook. And if they retake the Senate in 2018, there is talk of denying President Trump the
opportunity to fill any Supreme Court vacancy. This is a dangerous spiral. American democracy retains
important sources of strength, including vast national wealth, a vibrant media and civil society, and a robust
judiciary and rule of law. But the norms that once protected our institutions are coming unmoored.
President Trump has accelerated this norm erosion, but he didn’t start it. Intensifying polarization, driven by an
extremist Republican Party, is making constitutional hardball a new norm for party politics. The lessons of
history are clear. Extreme polarization can wreck even established democracies. America is no exception.
As long as Americans do not overcome their deepening partisan animosities, democracy remains at risk — President Trump or no
President Trump.
 2NC -- IL -- AT: Congress Blocks
The Senate can’t stop it.
Copland and Mangual ’19 [James and Rafael; Winter 2019; Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute
and Director of Legal Policy, J.D. and M.B.A. from Yale; Fellow and Deputy Director of Legal Policy, J.D.
from DePaul University; City Journal, “Toward a Less Dangerous Judicial Branch,” https://www.city-
journal.org/html/toward-less-dangerous-judicial-branch-16471.html; RP]
The president’s success in winning confirmation for his judicial nominees is a testament to the acumen and vetting process of the now-former
White House counsel, Don McGahn, and the political skills of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Democrats’ ability to
obstruct confirmations has also been hampered by the 2013 decision of former Democratic Majority Leader Harry
Reid to jettison the Senate filibuster rule for judicial nominations. Reid’s decision secured confirmations for three
Obama administration nominations to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that Republicans had held up but left the Democrats with
limited options for slowing or blocking nominations when in the minority, as they have been during Trump’s
presidency so far.

No checks -- Congress uses the nuclear option.

CBS ’18 [CBS News; July 9; News Agency; CBS, “Nuclear option: Why Trump's Supreme Court pick needs
only 51 votes,” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-option-why-trumps-supreme-court-pick-
needs-only-51-votes-in-the-senate/; RP]

Enter the "nuclear option" It

wasn't just Supreme Court nominees who needed 60 votes – federal judges and cabinet
secretaries needed them as well. But this arrangement had always been profoundly irritating to the party in
power, particularly given the political polarization of recent decades. Time and time again, the party in control of the Senate
and White House saw their selections for powerful positions filibustered by their opponents in the minority . Under
President George W. Bush, however, Republicans began toying with a way to get around the filibuster: a simple
change to the Senate rules, which required just 51 votes, that would allow judicial nominees to pass
with a simple majority. In 2003, the GOP controlled the White House and had the same 51-vote majority in the Senate they have
today. But Democrats had begun filibustering a number of Bush's judicial nominees, which Republicans saw as
an affront to their agenda. So Senate Republicans began toying around with an idea they called "the Hulk," a secret
plan to remove the 60-vote threshold via a rule change. But it was the former Republican leader, Mississippi Sen. Trent
Lott, who reportedly gave it the name that stuck: "the nuclear option." Did they use the nuclear option? No. Republicans increased their Senate
majority in the 2004 elections and the nuclear option was largely taken off the table. However, in 2013, Democrats were in charge of the Senate
and White House, and it was the minority Republicans who were filibustering their judicial picks en masse. So the
Democratic Senate
Majority Leader, Nevada's Harry Reid, decided to pull the trigger. The nuclear option was implemented for the
first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be
confirmed with just 51 votes. Republicans cried foul, despite threatening the nuclear option in the past, and Democrats who had
been opposed to such a rule change quickly changed their tune. Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time, "You'll regret
this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."
 2NC -- IL -- AT: Coronavirus
CoronaVirus doesnʻt change judge priorities
Durkee 5-1 (Alison, "Coronavirus Can’t Stop Mitch McConnell From Forcing Trump’s Judges Through
the Senate," Vanity Fair, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/mitch-mcconnell-coronavirus-
reconvene-senate-to-confirm-judges , 5-1-2020)// gcd

The coronavirus
may still be raging throughout the U .S.—but that apparently won’t stop the nation’s most
prominent group of high-risk Americans from gathering in person nonetheless . Though the U.S. House of
Representatives decided Tuesday not to return to Capitol Hill for a few more weeks after consulting with Congress’ attending physician,
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is insisting that the Senate will resume their in-person session
Monday as planned. “I think we can conduct our business safely,” McConnell told Fox News Thursday. “We've got a whole lot of
other people showing up for work during the pandemic. It’s time for the Senate to do that as well.”
Bringing senators back to Washington, of course, is a risky proposition, given the age of many of the nation’s top lawmakers. A full two-thirds of
senators are over the age of 60—and 22 are over age 70—putting them at a higher risk of complications from the coronavirus. Many also suffer
from pre-existing conditions that could exacerbate a case of COVID-19: McConnell himself, for instance, has had heart surgery, and Sen. Mazie
Hirono is fighting cancer. Beyond the senators themselves, the U.S. Capitol also employs thousands of staffers and service workers that will
likely be called back to work—many of whom are African-American, a demographic that’s been disproportionately affected by the coronavirus.
Enhanced safety measures will be in place as the Capitol gets up and running again, with attending physician Dr. Brian Monahan reportedly
advising in a private conference call Thursday that legislators should impose policies like include mandated masks, limiting the number of staff
in the building, and a screening process for visitors to lawmakers’ offices. “We can modify our routines in ways that are smart and safe,”
McConnell said on the call, per CNN. But there are limitations to the measures that the high-risk Senate can take: Monahan said that it
would be impossible to test all senators for the coronavirus and only those who are symptomatic will be
tested, even though asymptomatic carriers can easily spread the virus. Monahan was also not able to
commit to regularly testing the older senators who face the biggest threat. “There is no way to do this without increased risk,” 86- year-old
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the oldest member of the Senate, said in a statement Wednesday about the
Senate resuming. “This is the wrong example for the country.” Congressional leadership is necessary amid the global
pandemic, of course, which has had a devastating impact on the U.S. economy and left wide swaths of American individuals and businesses
financially unstable. But as the ranking Democrats on Senate committees noted in a letter to McConnell this week, the Senate
has “no
scheduled legislative or committee business related to the COVID-19 public health and economic
emergencies” currently slated for when the Senate resumes. Instead , McConnell’s focus in reconvening lawmakers
seems to be on the Senate majority leader’s true priority: making sure the Senate confirms as many of President Donald Trump’s judicial
nominees as humanly possible. McConnell seemingly intends to use the Senate’s upcoming session to continue
forcing judges through the confirmation process, as the looming threat of Democrats regaining control in
November puts a time crunch on his dream to remake the U.S. court system in Trump’s image . “As soon as
we get back in session, we’ll start confirming judges again,” McConnell told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt last week. “We
need to have hearings, and we need to confirm judges.” Among those expected to be confirmed Justin Walker, a
current U.S. District Judge in Kentucky who’s up for a spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit—and just so happens to be a McConnell protégé who has known the Senate majority
leader for years. Walker, whom the American Bar Association deemed “not qualified” for even his
district court position due to inexperience, is currently expected to have his nomination considered mid-
pandemic is by the Senate Judiciary Committee next week. Senate Democrats obviously aren’t thrilled with McConnell calling them back to
Washington while Washington D.C. itself still remains under lockdown, let alone to enable the Kentucky senator’s pet project of reshaping the
judiciary. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that McConnell did not consult him on the decision to call back the Senate and vowed to
“make sure that the workers are protected in every way,” while the Ranking Members urged McConnell “to have the Senate focus on COVID-19
related matters and oversight” in their letter. Democrats on the Senate
Judiciary Committee have also specifically called
on Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham to cancel Walker’s confirmation hearing, given the importance of
focusing on the pandemic. “There is no urgency to moving lifetime appointments at this juncture,” Democrats wrote. “There is,
however, considerable urgency—and growing public demand—for oversight of the federal government’s response to COVID-19.” And even
some Republicans may be acknowledging that the Senate majority leader’s priorities aren’t quite in sync
with what the American people actually want . “As much as judges are important, what people want us to
be focused on is COVID,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski said on a recent GOP conference all, per the New York Times.
 2NC -- IL -- AT: Court Blocks
It's expressly constitutional and no court would strike it down.
Primus ’17 [Richard; November 24; Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, J.D. from Yale
University; Harvard Law Review, “Rulebooks, Playgrounds, and Endgames: A Constitutional Analysis of
the Calabresi-Hirji Judgeship Proposal,” https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/rulebooks-playgrounds-and-
endgames-a-constitutional-analysis-of-the-calabresi-hirji-judgeship-proposal/; RP]

Nothing in the text of the written Constitution prohibits Congress from adjusting the size of the federal
judiciary. On the contrary, Article I, Section 8, clause ix and Article III, Section 1 expressly give Congress the authority
to constitute (Article I’s language) and to ordain and establish (that’s Article III) tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. The
power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested in the various departments of the government
gives Congress the authority to structure those lower courts, including the power to prescribe the number
of judges on each court. The number of judges now is and always has been set by statute. A court faced with a
challenge to the Calabresi-Hirji proposal would surely begin its analysis by noting those features of the
Constitution’s text. It might also note that as a historical matter, Congress has in the past made changes to the
federal judiciary for the purpose of changing who controls that institution. FDR’s famous court-packing proposal was not the only such
venture in American history, and unlike FDR’s attempt, several of the others succeeded. Between 1801 and 1869, when
there were no circuit judgeships to manipulate, Congress enacted statutes changing the size of the Supreme
Court on half a dozen occasions. Each time, the adjustment was intended to affect the Court’s balance of partisan or ideological
control. That early history is a further obstacle to arguing that the Calabresi-Hirji proposal is unconstitutional: it is
hard, within the prevailing conventions, to argue that a type of legislation that was enacted half a dozen times early in the
history of the Republic is invalid. In short, if Congress were to enact some form of the Calabresi-Hirji proposal, the
enactment would easily be constitutional in the most conventional senses of that term. It would not contravene any
text in the written Constitution, and it would not be subject to invalidation through judicial review.
 2NC -- IL -- AT: Democrats Reverse
Democratic court packing is impossible.
Millhiser ’20 [Ian; February 4; Senior correspondent, J.D. from Duke University; Vox, “What Trump has
done to the courts, explained,” https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/9/20962980/trump-
supreme-court-federal-judges; RP] *Images omitted

The future of the judiciary favors Republicans While

Trump’s been very successful at filling the bench with brilliant
Republican partisans, a Democratic president is unlikely to enjoy similar success. A badly malapportioned
Senate means that to get even a bare majority in the Senate, Democrats have to win commanding popular
vote majorities — and if Democrats don’t control the Senate, Democratic nominees could face the Merrick
Garland treatment. Just look at the last two years of the Obama presidency if you want to know how a
Republican Senate is likely to treat Democratic judicial nominees. Even if Democrats do overcome the odds to
capture a majority, moreover, the balance of power is likely to be held by red-state Democrats who could be
vulnerable to pressure from conservative interest groups hoping to keep Democratic nominees off the bench.
In other words, it’ll be a long, long time before Democrats can undo the work Trump and the Republicans have
done to turn the judiciary rightward . In the early months of the Trump presidency, so-called “Never Trump” Republicans often
directed a derisive phrase against Trump supporters: “But Gorsuch.” It was a taunt that mocked the idea that it was worth selling your soul to a
manifestly unfit TV celebrity who has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by more than a dozen women in order to keep control of
the courts. But, as conservative columnist Hugh Hewitt wrote in 2018, “this bit of childish taunting always struck me as an unknowing admission
of ignorance about the role assumed by the Supreme Court in modern American governance.” Certainly, Mitch McConnell understood this role.
It’s why he was willing to use any means necessary to ensure Republican control of the judiciary.

Senate Republicans won’t allow it.

Higgins ‘19 [Tucker; reporter for CNBC; 5-21-2019; “McConnell tells Supreme Court justices that he will
protect them from Democrats’ court-packing ‘threat’”; CNBC;
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/29/mcconnell-tells-supreme-court-justices-he-will-not-allow-court-
packing.html; Accessed 6-24-2020; AH]

Senate Republicans told the Supreme Court on Thursday that they will work to prevent Democrats from
expanding the size of the nine-member panel.

In an unusual letter, SenateMajority Leader Mitch McConnell and the 52 other Republican members of the
Senate took issue with a friend-of-the-court brief filed earlier this month by Senate Democrats.

That brief, led by Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, warned the court that it was “not well” and
urged it to “heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics,’
citing language from a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

“It’s one thing for politicians to peddle these ideas in Tweets or on the stump,” the Republican senators wrote. “But the Democrats’ [friend-of-
the-court] brief demonstrates that their court-packing plans are more than mere pandering. They are a direct, immediate threat to the
independence of the judiciary and the rights of all Americans.”

The Republicanscharacterized the brief , and in particular the plans to expand the size of the court, as a
“direct, immediate threat” to the independence of the federal judiciary.

“While we remain Members of this body, the Democrats’ threat to “restructure[ ]” the Court is an empty one,” the senators wrote. They
said they shared the view of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the senior member of the court’s liberal wing, who said this
year that she opposed court expansion, noting “nine seems to be a good number.”
Democratic candidates for president have proposed various reforms for the top court, including expanding
its size and altering the way judges are selected. South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are
among the top candidates who have said they are open to increasing the number of justices. Gillibrand, who dropped out of the presidential
race on Wednesday, signed onto Whitehouse’s brief.

Dems won’t pack the courts

Bernstein 18 [Jonathan; political reporter and analyst; 10-10-2018; "Why Democrats won’t pack the
Supreme Court in 2021"; Bloomberg Opinion; https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-
10/democrats-won-t-pack-supreme-court-in-2021; dhs-brt]

Democrats are already talking about the possibility of playing some serious constitutional hardball if they win back the White
House and achieve House and Senate majorities in the 2020 election. The utmost example of this would be to expand the size of the
Supreme Court and add liberal justices. Don’t count on it happening. At least, not at first. Court-packing — raising the number
of justices — is absolutely legal. The Constitution doesn’t set the size of the court, leaving it up to Congress. Yet, the number has stayed at
nine since 1869, and hasn’t been challenged since Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to change it in 1937 (the attempt failed, but it may have helped
get him what he wanted anyway). There’s good reason to believe that violating that norm would have costs in terms of the stability of the
entire political system. Of course, there was also a norm, up until 2016, that the Senate would at least consider any presidential nominee to the
court, and during times of divided government the president and the Senate majority would work to find a compromise. There was also a norm
that nominees would refrain from partisan conspiracy-mongering, but that’s gone, too. It’s the nature of constitutional hardball that when one
party does it, the other party fights back in an ever-accelerating spiral. Whether this would justify Democratic court-packing is an interesting
question. But speculation about it is exactly what we should expect, given Senate leader Mitch McConnell’s tactics and Brett Kavanaugh’s
partisanship (and Republican gloating). Liberals
are livid about how the last two Supreme Court vacancies were
filled, and itching to doing something radical about it. Even so, my guess is that we shouldn’t expect immediate
Democratic action in 2021, even if the party has attained unified government . For one thing, any Democratic
majority in the Senate would likely include some fairly moderate liberals from swing or Republican states who
won’t want any raw partisan fights over the court. Unless Democrats win a large majority, they won’t
have the votes, and even then there’s no way they’ll have the 60 they’ll need. Beyond that, Democrats are going
to have a lot of priorities the next time they have a chance to legislate — health care, climate change,
voting rights and all the other areas where the Trump administration eroded or reversed their policies. And this list doesn’t even
include any new pressing issues that arise between now and 2021 (or 2025 or whenever Democrats next get the chance). Some triage will be
necessary. It’s
unlikely that court packing will be at the front of that line . Some Democrats will argue that
everything else they do is useless until the court changes. But others will believe that substantive bills
should take precedence over procedural matters. My guess is that substantive measures will win that fight. Unless.
The wild card is what the new Roberts court does in the next couple of years — and then how it reacts to this hypothetical Democratic majority
once that majority starts passing legislation. If John Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are aggressive,
they may be knocking out liberal laws and precedents just as the Supreme Court did during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. They will almost
certainly severely restrict or end the right to an abortion. The court could, however, go a lot further than that and start to dismantle core
programs of the Great Society and the New Deal. After all, it’s quite likely that at least some of the justices believe that all the programs liberals
have passed from 1933 on violate the Constitution. What’s far less clear is what they have five votes for — and to what extent respect for
precedent and for the popularity of these policies would give them pause even if they believe in some abstract way that these programs should
all be gone. Democraticcourt-packing as revenge is unlikely. It’s also unlikely that Democrats will resort to
it to achieve a single policy goal, even one that is very important to their coalition.
 2NC -- IL -- AT: No Vacancies
Lack of vacancies does not matter – they will get judges to retire
Kilgore 5-29– reporter at Intelligencer (Ed, "Lindsey Graham Asks Older Judges to Retire So Trump Can
Replace Them," Intelligencer, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/graham-asks-older-judges-to-
retire-so-trump-can-replace-them.html 5-29-2020)// gcd

There have been three well-established indicators that Republicansin the Trump era are working to maximize the value
of lifetime judicial appointments, far more than Democrats or their predecessors have done. The first is the ideological
vetting machine for federal judicial nominations set up originally by former White House counsel Don McGahn, relying
heavily on advice from the conservative Federalist Society. The second is an increasingly efficient
operation for quickly confirming judges in the Senate, supervised by Mitch McConnell, who has made this chore a top priority
even during the coronavirus pandemic. The third is an emphasis on choosing younger judges with longer career
lifespans in the federal judiciary, as exemplified by recent D.C. Circuit appointee Justin Walker, who is 37. And now a fourth
prong of the GOP strategy — as articulated by Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham — is appearing at that popular
right-wing water cooler, Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, as reported by the Washington Post: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey
O. Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday urged federal judges who are in their mid-to-late 60s to step aside so that Republicans,
increasingly nervous about holding the Senate majority in the November election as they eye President
Trump’s poll numbers, can fill the vacancies now … Depending on the number of years they have served on the bench, judges
who are age 65 and older are eligible to take a reduced workload known as “senior status.” According to a recent analysis by judicial expert
Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution, a total of 66 court of appeals judges are now or will soon be eligible for senior status. Thirty-
eight of those judges are Democratic appointees, while 28 are Republican appointees. So the idea is to shuffle some old
conservative goats off to retirement, making way for some young conservative kids who will be able to serve for two or three decades more. As
Graham made clear,
there’s no time for dilly-dallying about it since the November election threatens both
Trump’s tenure and Graham’s own chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee:
 2NC -- IL -- AT: Thurmond Rule
No Thurmond Rule
Cioffi 5-19 – judicial reporter at Roll Call (Chris, "McConnell’s push to confirm judges may mean another
tradition is dead," Roll Call, https://www.rollcall.com/2020/06/11/mcconnells-push-to-confirm-judges-
may-mean-another-tradition-is-dead/ 5-19-2020)//gcd

Named after the late South Carolina Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond,
senators from both sides have used it to block
action on a president’s appeals court picks. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for instance, cited the rule
on June 13, 2012, as reason to halt judicial nominations at the end of President Barack Obama’s first
term. McConnell was minority leader at the time. But there’s nary a whisper of the Thurmond Rule this
year. And thanks to Senate rule changes and McConnell’s focus on filling the courts with President Donald Trump’s
nominees, the old rule looks like it will be ignored. On Wednesday, McConnell teed up the nomination of his
protégé Justin Walker for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The
Senate will likely take up the controversial nomination early next week. The demise of the 60-vote
filibuster for nominees means Democrats — who might be tempted to cite the Thurmond Rule in June — cannot stop a
majority leader who has pledged to “leave no vacancy behind.” And if a precedent like that is set by McConnell in an
election year, it’s likely the Thurmond Rule is gone for good. “I don’t see the Democrats or the Republicans next year saying,
‘Well, let’s let bygones be bygones,’” said Russell Wheeler, president of the Governance Institute and a visiting fellow at the Brookings
Institution. “That’s just all out the window.” Wheeler, who has written about the Thurmond Rule, said nominations
and
confirmations are known to drop off in presidential election years. But that drop is not inevitable and has as
much to do with the number of seats on the bench that are available.
Aff -- Court Packing
2AC
 2AC -- AT: Court Packing DA
Courts are packed now – Trump appointed 200 judges and the judiciary is now an arm
of the Republican party.
Hutzler ‘6/24 [Alexandra; staff writer on Newsweek's politics team; 6-24-2020; "Trump's impact on
courts cemented as 200th judge appointed to federal bench"; Newsweek;
https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-impact-courts-cemented-200th-judge-appointed-federal-bench-
1512833; accessed 7-2-2020; SM]

President Donald Trump's

impact on the U.S. court system was cemented on Wednesday after his 200th judicial
appointment was confirmed by the Senate.
The Senate confirmed Cory Wilson, a state court judge in Mississippi, to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-48 vote.

"No modern president has had this level of impact on the composition of the federal courts," said Jonathan
Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. "This is a master footprint for any president on the
judiciary."

Trump inherited 108 lifetime federal judicial vacancies when he entered office in 2017, the most for an
incoming president since Bill Clinton in 1992. With the help of Republicans in Congress, Trump has been
appointing federal judges at a historic pace.

In his first three and a half years in the Oval Office, Trump successfully appointed 53 circuit court judges, 143 trial
court judges, two international trade court judges and two Supreme Court justices.
By comparison, in his eight years in the White House, President Barack Obama landed 55 circuit judges, 268 trial court judges, four international
trade court judges and two Supreme Court justices.

Overall, Trump
has appointed more than one-fifth of the entire judiciary. And Republicans have their eyes on
even more confirmations before Election Day when Trump's chances of a second term and control of
the Senate will be on the ballot. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said his "motto for the year is 'leave no
vacancy behind.'"

Last month, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) urged older judges to retire so even more Trump appointees could
be packed into the court system. In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Graham said if you're a judge in your mid-
to-late 60s, now would be a "good time" to retire if "you want to make sure the judiciary is right of center."

Trump has also renewed his 2016 campaign message to fill the judiciary with conservatives amid his re-
election campaign. Last week, he tweeted that he will be releasing a new list of Supreme Court justice
nominees by September 1. If elected to a second term, it's possible Trump will be able to put a third
justice on the bench.
But the Trump administration has come under fire for its lack of diversity in judicial nominations because most of the appointees have been
white men. According to a report released earlier this year by the progressive judicial advocacy group Alliance for Justice, 85 percent of new
judges approved are white and nearly 76 percent of them are men.

"His judicial appointments have also been overwhelmingly white and male at a time when diversity on the bench is more important than ever.
It will take decades to undo the damage the Trump administration has done to our courts," said Russ Feingold,
president of the progressive legal organization American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Democratic lawmakers have also criticized the president's approach to appointing judges. Last month, liberal leaders in the Senate released a
report alleging that Republicans had taken over the federal court system through a strategy "well-funded by millions of dollars in anonymous,
special-interest money."
"Now, withthe addition of two hundred life-tenured Trump judges—more ideologically extreme and less
experienced than any crop of judges in our nation's history—our federal courts risk becoming little more
than an arm of the Republican Party's big donors," the report said.

Republicans are pro-CJR reform – they’ve realized law-and-order rhetoric is

unsustainable.
Swan ‘6/9 [Jonathan; national political reporter at Axios; 6-9-2020; "Inside Senate Republicans' plan for
police reform"; Axios; https://www.axios.com/senate-republicans-police-reform-8233534b-22fa-46d8-
9bb0-9233b82a1c34.html; accessed 7-2-2020; SM]

Senate Republicans are crafting a package of police reforms that would make lynching a federal crime and
threaten to cut federal grants if states don't force their police departments to report significantly more
detail on officers' use of force, according to two sources familiar with the internal conversations.

Why this matters: Republicans have recognized that it's

politically unsustainable to simply hammer a "law-and-
order" message, and that they need to propose measures to respond to the national outcry for police
reform after the killing of George Floyd.
To lead this effort, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) turned to Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the only African-American in
the Republican conference and a senator with a substantial history of proposing criminal justice and police reform legislation.

The big picture: "We don't have the data we need to understand when, where, why and how these tragic incidents are happening in totality,"
said Sean Smith, communications director for Scott, who is leading the Republican working group on police reform.

Behind the scenes: Other members of the group are Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Ben
Sasse (R-Neb.), and James Lankford (R-Okla.).

Scott met this afternoon with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner and senior official
Ja'Ron Smith to share details of the Senate proposal and to discuss where they might find common ground.

Details: Two sources familiar with the Senate working group discussions said the Republican police reform proposal will likely
include the following measures:

A federal requirement for states who receive federal grants for law enforcement to report uses of force
that cause death or serious injury. If states fail to comply, they could lose 10% of their federal grant
money. (This would expand the Walter Scott Notification Act — a bill Scott has been introducing since 2015 — and is viewed as a direct
response to the violent act that killed George Floyd. The officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeled on Floyd's neck.)

Require states to provide data on the use of "no knock" search warrants. (This is also an expansion of the Walter
Scott Notification Act, and is a direct response to the killing of Breonna Taylor after Louisville police officers used a battering ram to crash into
her apartment.)

Expand federal grants to recruit police officers who have similar backgrounds to the communities they
serve.

Increase funding for body cameras. This idea is also based on legislation Scott been introducing since 2015 (the Safer Officers
and Safer Communities Act). The working group has also been discussing cutting federal grants to states whose
police officers fail to to use those body cameras.

Wrap in the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act , which would make lynching a federal crime.

Create a "National Criminal Justice Commission" to do a "comprehensive review of the system and make
recommendations for reform."
Other ideas they're discussing include tying federal grants to training on alternatives to using force and
incentivizing "use of force review boards" (review boards where communities work with police departments in reviewing use of
force incidents).

Democrats will block appointments.

Levine 4-13 – staff writer at Politco (Marianne, "Senate hits pause on confirming Trump’s judges ,"
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/13/senate-trump-judges-coronavirus-175188 4-13-20)//gc

“The administration and the chairman will want to hit the ground running and burn some midnight oil in the month of May
to try to catch up at least a little bit,” Leo said. “The question
is how cooperative the Democrats will be at that time.”
He added that ideally some Democratic cooperation will be needed for scheduling hearings and reviewing
questionnaires "expeditiously.” “Everybody when they get back to Washington will want to try to return things to normalcy as much as
possible " he said. "Nominations should be no different." But Democrats are not exactly feeling collaborative. "We have
thought [McConnell] has abused that process for years now," Durbin said. "And I for one am not going to make it any
easier for him to put in these judges." In the wake of the virus, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) acknowledged the Senate Judiciary
Committee may need to find some “creative ways” to address the vacancies. But he said the Senate’s past focus on judges is
cushioning the virus’ effect.

DACA thumps.
Pergram ’20 [Chad; June 21; Congressional correspondent; Fox News, “DACA, LGBTQ decisions leave
some conservatives with Supreme Court buyers' remorse,” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/daca-
lgbt-decisions-leave-some-conservatives-with-supreme-court-buyers-remorse; RP]
Democratic senators suggested to Hillary Clinton that she renominate Garland if she won in 2016. But the GOP’s treatment of Garland only
intensified anger on the left when President Trump unexpectedly prevailed. Trump has already scored two justices in Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
In addition, McConnell has dedicated much of the Senate’s floor traffic over the past several years to installing
conservative jurists to federal courts.

So, after all of this energy to craft a conservative judiciary and a Supreme Court that tilts to the right, one
can understand why the right is apoplectic about the recent rulings.

Gorsuch wrote the majority 6-3 decision in the case barring employers from firing workers due to their sexual identity. Chief Justice John
Roberts provided the swing vote in the DACA case.

“You have a Supreme Court that appears to be legislating,” argued Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “What really
troubles a lot of people is that some of the folks the Republican party has put on this bench…are actively
becoming activists in the role that they’re playing. It’s concerning and frankly, undermines the purpose of
the court.”

Many Republicans attacked Roberts – a frequent target of their derision. They still hold a grudge against him for not
overturning ObamaCare in 2012. Roberts also sided with liberals on the court in 2019, blocking the Trump
administration from adding a question over citizenship on the 2020 census forms.

“Judging is not a game. It’s not supposed to be a game. But sadly over recent years, more and more, Chief Justice Roberts
has been playing games with the court to achieve the policy outcomes he desires,” charged Sen. Ted Cruz, R-
Texas, in a feisty floor speech Thursday afternoon. “That’s not clever. That’s lawless. The decision today was lawless.”

“Chief Justice Roberts does it again, convoluting the law to appease the D.C. establishment,” blasted Rep.
Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the leading Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “The court’s decision creates two standards of executive
power. One for President Obama and another for President Trump.”
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., went even further than his GOP colleagues.

“If the chief justice believes his political judgment is so exquisite, I invite him to resign, travel to Iowa and get
elected,” said Cotton. “I suspect voters will find his strange views no more compelling than do the principled justices on the court.”

So Republicans are in a period of serious buyer’s remorse. They’ve invested all of this time stocking the
judiciary, and they’re not getting the judicial outcomes they want.

The fact that the Supreme Court never undercut ObamaCare haunts Republicans to this day. The DACA decision
echoes, too.

As does June Medical.

Rowan ’20 [Nicholas; June 29; Staff writer, citing various legal experts; Washington Examiner, “'The
Kagan Court': Anti-abortion leaders rip Roberts for ruling against Louisiana restrictions,”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/the-kagan-court-anti-abortion-leaders-rip-roberts-for-
ruling-against-louisiana-restrictions; RP]

Leaders within the anti-abortion movement on Monday denounced the Supreme Court's decision to rule in favor of
protecting abortion rights in the case June Medical Services LLC v. Russo.

The decision, a major win for abortion providers, was made possible by Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal
wing of the court in his opinion. Robert's flip, which came only two weeks after he joined the liberal justices
in the landmark transgender rights case Bostock v. Clayton County, enraged social conservatives.

Jessica Anderson, executive director at Heritage

Action, a sister organization of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that
Roberts had "betrayed the rule of law and the dignity of the bench," especially considering that he held the
opposite opinion in a 2016 case.

"This is the latest in a series of judicial power grabs from the Chief Justice and the liberal wing of the court,
who have consistently ruled on the basis of progressive politics instead of respecting the law, the will of
voters, or the basic dignity of life," Anderson said. "Justice Roberts, a so-called 'conservative,' is clearly no longer
running things — it's now the Kagan Court."
The "Kagan Court" accusation, a reference to Justice Elena Kagan, the liberal justice appointed by President Barack Obama, is not new:
The Wall Street Journal editorial board threw the insult at Roberts after he and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the liberals
in Bostock.

"Bostock is merely the latest evidence that the Roberts Court, even buttressed by two Trump nominees, is
in no consistent way 'conservative,'" the board wrote. "On major cases Justice Kagan swings the biggest
constitutional bat."

Other anti-abortion leaders voiced a similar opinion after June. Activist Abby Johnson tweeted that she wasn't
sure that Roberts
could be "any bigger of a disappointment." Anti-abortion group Live Action President Lila Rose called Roberts's flip
"truly awful."

Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan taunted Roberts in a tweet, asking, "What’s next, Chief Justice Roberts? Our Second
Amendment rights?"

Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse

was also critical of the decision, saying in a statement that the Supreme Court undermined
"its legitimacy as a non-political institution."
"The problem with today’s decision is absolutely terrible jurisprudence," Sasse said. "Simply, bad lawyering."
Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser called the decision a "bitter disappointment" but said that it demonstrated the need for
people to vote President Trump in November, noting that both of his appointees, Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined Justice Clarence
Thomas's dissent.

“Today’s ruling reinforces just how important Supreme Court judges are to advancing the pro-life cause,"
Dannenfelser said in a statement. "It is imperative that we re-elect President Trump and our pro-life majority in the U.S. Senate
so we can further restore the judiciary, most especially the Supreme Court."

Warming doesn’t cause extinction.

Farquhar et al. 17 Sebastian Farquhar, DPhil student at Oxford specializing in Cyber Security and AI.
John Halstead, doctorate in political philosophy. Owen Cotton-Barratt, DPhil in pure mathematics. Stefan
Schubert, Oxford's department of experimental psychology. Haydn Belfield, degree in Philosophy,
Politics and Economics from Oriel College. Andrew Snyder-Beattie, Director of Research at the Future of
Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, MS in biomathematics. [Existential Risk: Diplomacy and
Governance, Global Priorities Project 2017]//BPS

The most likely levels of global warming are very unlikely to cause human extinction.15 The existential risks
of climate change instead stem from tail risk climate change – the low probability of extreme levels of
warming – and interaction with other sources of risk. It is impossible to say with confidence at what point global
warming would become severe enough to pose an existential threat. Research has suggested that warming of 11-12°C
would render most of the planet uninhabitable,16 and would completely devastate agriculture.17 This would pose an extreme threat to human
civilisation as we know it.18 Warming of around 7°C or more could potentially produce conflict and instability on such a scale that the indirect
effects could be an existential risk, although it is extremely uncertain how likely such scenarios are.19 Moreover, the
timescales over
which such changes might happen could mean that humanity is able to adapt enough to avoid extinction in even
very extreme scenarios.
1AR Overview
 OV -- AT: Abortion
Legislatures will protect reproductive freedom.
Nelson, 1-11—Cosmopolitan’s senior writer covering politics (Rebecca, “How State Legislators Across
the Country Are Joining Forces to Fight for Reproductive Rights,”
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a15060139/reproductive-rights-council-state-innovation-
exchange/, dml)

Amid crackdowns on abortion access nationwide, Shannon and more than 200 other state legislators
across the country have signed on to a new Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council launched on Thursday
by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX), a nonprofit policy and resource center for progressive state legislators. The council’s objective is
to put reproductive rights at the forefront of progressives’ — and the country’s — agenda.

“The goal is to send the message that despite the 401 state-level abortion restrictions that have been passed
into law since 2011, we do have leaders at the state level who are willing to stand up and fight for our
rights,” says Kelly Baden, SiX’s director of reproductive rights.
The council aims to bring state legislators from Oregon to Virginia together in pursuit of that common goal, and ensure that liberal legislators in
Alabama — who might not have as many allies in the statehouse — are connected to progressives in states like Vermont. The
alliance
hopes to keep lawmakers updated on the latest reproductive rights legislation and other related news,
as well as help them talk about the issue differently . A big focus, Baden says, is reframing the issue of reproductive rights as
not just a constitutional right, but a personal one, too.

According to the Pew Research Center, about 7 in 10 Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade , the landmark Supreme
Court decision that made access to abortion the law of the land. “Between local, state, and national laws — and this chaotic news culture — it's
hard for people to be fully informed of every attempt to restrict their reproductive rights,” Baden says. “But when people do hear about them,
they don't want them.” The
council, she says, will encourage state legislators to speak out about their
commitment to the issue in order to “ramp up the public opposition to bad bills and help reverse the
trend.”
Last year, some Democrats, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, faced backlash when they
suggested that there shouldn’t be a litmus test on abortion rights and the party should be open to anti-abortion politicians. SiX categorically
decries progressives who claim reproductive rights aren’t a necessary component to membership in the Democratic party. “ Reproductive
freedom is a central and necessary component of an inclusive progressive agenda,” reads the new council’s
platform.

Athena Salman,a state representative in Arizona who has signed onto the effort, says reproductive rights is one of the
main reasons she decided to run for office in 2016. On Thursday, she plans to submit legislation that would
repeal major restrictions on abortion access in the state, such as the mandatory 24-hour waiting period and the ban on state
insurance coverage for the procedure.

“I think what happens, unfortunately, in the past, is that we let the other side drive the debate and change the debate,” says Salman, who
believes women have been cut out of the conversation. “I'm hoping we can successfully shift the narrative and actually talk about the real
reality that women face and also put the focus on respecting women's decisions and not judging them.”

She likens the state legislators’ efforts on reproductive rights to the #MeToo movement. “The only reason that the support for the victims of
sexual harassment has gained traction is because not
just in one instance, not just in one state, but women across
sectors, and men across sectors in our society, are speaking out ,” she says. “And now you have this huge
echo chamber and you're actually seeing some policy shift as a result.”
Partisanship’s structurally non-unique.
Chokshi ’16 [Niraj; June 23; Business reporter, citing the Pew Research Center; New York Times, “U.S.
Partisanship Is Highest in Decades, Pew Study Finds,”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/politics/partisanship-republicans-democrats-pew-
research.html; RP]

Fistfights at campaign rallies. A congressional sit-in. Angry political trolling on the internet. It’s
not your imagination: America’s
partisan divide is deeper today than at any point in nearly a quarter-century, according to a new study.

For the first time since at least 1992, the

majority of Democrats and Republicans say they view the opposing party
“very unfavorably,” the Pew Research Center found in a report published on Wednesday. At the same time, around half of the
members of either party said their opponents stirred feelings of fear and anger in them .

“It’s really this intensity of negativity that’s increased,” said Carroll Doherty, director of political research for Pew and one of
the report’s authors.

While the Pew research only goes back to 1992, the results conform with decades of growing partisan negativity in
data from the American National Elections Study, a collaboration of Stanford University and the University of Michigan, Mr. Doherty said.

“You see that the same trend’s apparent going all the way back to the 1960s,” he said. “It’s really the rise of very negative
views, that’s what’s most apparent if you look at our trend.”

Today, according to Pew, 91

percent of Republicans view the Democratic Party unfavorably, with 58 percent
holding “very unfavorable” attitudes toward it. Among Democrats, 86 percent view the Republican Party
unfavorably, while 55 percent hold it in a very unfavorable light.

The Republican Party strikes fear in the hearts of 55 percent of Democrats surveyed, Pew found. Among Republicans,
49 percent felt the same way about the Democratic Party.
 OV -- AT: Democracy
Democracy is resilient, but it solves nothing.
Doorenspleet 19 Renske Doorenspleet, Politics Professor at the University of Warwick. [Rethinking the
Value of Democracy: A Comparative Perspective, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 239-243]//BPS

The value of democracy has been taken for granted until recently, but this assumption seems to be under threat now more
than ever before. As was explained in Chapter 1, democracy’s claim to be valuable does not rest on just one particular merit, and scholars tend
to distinguish three different types of values (Sen 1999). This book focused on the instrumental value of democracy (and hence not on the
intrinsic and constructive value), and investigated the value of democracy for peace (Chapters 3 and 4), control of corruption (Chapter 5) and
economic development (Chapter 6). This
study was based on a search of an enormous academic database for certain
keywords,6 then pruned the thousands of articles down to a few hundred articles (see Appendix) which statistically
analysed the connection between the democracy and the four expected outcomes. The frst fiding is that a
reverse wave away from democracy has not happened (see Chapter 2). Not yet, at least. Democracy is not doing
worse than before, at least not in comparative perspective. While it is true that there is a dramatic decline in democracy in
some countries,7 a general trend downwards cannot yet be detected . It would be better to talk about ‘stagnation’, as not
many dictatorships have democratized recently, while democracies have not yet collapsed. Another fnding is that the instrumental value of
democracy is very questionable. The feld has been deeply polarized between researchers who endorse a link between democracy and positive
outcomes, and those who reject this optimistic idea and instead emphasize the negative effects of democracy. There
has been ‘no
consensus’ in the quantitative literature on whether democracy has instrumental value which leads some
beneficial general outcomes. Some scholars claim there is a consensus, but they only do so by ignoring
a huge amount of literature which rejects their own point of view . After undertaking a large-scale analysis of carefully
selected articles published on the topic (see Appendix), this book can conclude that the connections between
democracy and expected benefts are not as strong as they seem. Hence, we should not overstate the links between the
phenomena. The overall evidence is weak. Take the expected impact of democracy on peace for example. As Chapter 3 showed, the
study of democracy and interstate war has been a fourishing theme in political science, particularly since the 1970s. However, there are four
reasons why democracy does not cause peace between countries, and why the empirical support for the popular idea of democratic peace is
quite weak. Most statistical studies have not found a strong correlation between democracy and
interstate war at the dyadic level. They show that there are other—more powerful—explanations for war
and peace, and even that the impact of democracy is a spurious one (caveat 1). Moreover, the theoretical foundation
of the democratic peace hypothesis is weak, and the causal mechanisms are unclear (caveat 2). In addition,
democracies are not necessarily more peaceful in general, and the evidence for the democratic peace hypothesis at
the monadic level is inconclusive (caveat 3). Finally, the process of democratization is dangerous. Living in a
democratizing country means living in a less peaceful country (caveat 4). With regard to peace between countries, we cannot defend the idea
that democracy has instrumental value. Can the (instrumental) value of democracy be found in the prevention of civil war?
Or is the evidence for the opposite idea more convincing, and does democracy have a ‘dark side’ which makes civil war more likely? The
findings are confusing, which is exacerbated by the fact that different aspects of civil war (prevalence, onset, duration and severity) are mixed
up in some civil war studies. Moreover, defining civil war is a delicate, politically sensitive issue. Determining whether there is a civil war in a
particular country is incredibly diffcult, while measurements suffer from many weaknesses (caveat 1). Moreover, there is no linear link:
civil wars are just as unlikely in democracies as in dictatorships (caveat 2). Civil war is most likely in times of political
change. Democratization is a very unpredictable, dangerous process, increasing the chance of civil war
significantly. Hybrid systems are at risk as well: the chance of civil war is much higher compared to other political systems (caveat 3). More
specifcally, both the strength and type of political institutions matter when explaining civil war. However, the type of political system
(e.g. democracy or dictatorship) is not the decisive factor at all (caveat 4). Finally, democracy has only limited
explanatory power (caveat 5). Economic factors are far more significant than political factors (such as having a
democratic system) when explaining the onset, duration and severity of civil war. To prevent civil war, it would make more sense to make
poorer countries richer, instead of promoting democracy. Helping countries to democratize would even be a very
dangerous idea, as countries with changing levels of democracy are most vulnerable, making civil wars most likely. It is true that there is
evidence that the chance of civil war decreases when the extent of democracy increases considerably. The problem however is that most
countries do not go through big political changes but through small changes instead; those small steps—away or towards more democracy—
are dangerous. Not only is the onset of civil war likely under such circumstances, but civil wars also tend to be longer, and the confict is more
cruel leading to more victims, destruction and killings (see Chapter 4). A more encouraging story can be told around the value for democracy to
control corruption in a country (see Chapter 5). Fighting corruption has been high on the agenda of international organizations such as the
World Bank and the IMF. Moreover, the theme of corruption has been studied thoroughly in many different academic disciplines—mainly in
economics, but also in sociology, political science and law. Democracy has often been suggested as one of the remedies when fghting against
high levels of continuous corruption. So far, the statistical evidence has strongly supported this idea. As Chapter 5 showed, dozens of studies
with broad quantitative, cross-national and comparative research have found statistically signifcant associations between (less) democracy and
(more) corruption. However, there are vast problems around conceptualization (caveat 1) and measurement (caveat 2) of ‘corruption’. Another
caveat is that democratizing countries are the poorest performers with regard to controlling corruption (caveat
3). Moreover, it is not democracy in general, but particular political institutions which have an impact on the control of corruption; and a free
press also helps a lot in order to limit corruptive practices in a country (caveat 4). In addition, democracies seem to be less affected by
corruption than dictatorships, but at the same time, there is clear evidence that economic factors have more explanatory power (caveat 5). In
conclusion, more democracy means less corruption, but we need to be modest (as other factors matter more) and cautious (as there are many
caveats). The perceived impact of democracy on development has been highly contested as well (see Chapter 6). Some scholars argue that
democratic systems have a positive impact, while others argue that high levels of democracy actually reduce the levels of economic growth and
development. Particularly since the 1990s, statistical studies have focused on this debate, and the empirical evidence is clear:
there is no direct impact of democracy on development. Hence, both approaches cannot be supported (see caveat 1). The
indirect impact via other factors is also questionable (caveat 2). Moreover, there is too much variation in levels of economic
growth and development among the dictatorial systems, and there are huge regional differences (caveat 3). Adopting a one-size-
ftsall approach would not be wise at all. In addition, in order to increase development, it would be better to focus on alternative factors such as
improving institutional quality and good governance (caveat 4). There is not suffcient evidence to state that democracy has instrumental value,
at least not with regard to economic growth. However, future research needs to include broader concepts and measurements of development
in their models, as so far studies have mainly focused on explaining cross-national differences in growth of GDP (caveat 5). Overall, the
instrumental value of democracy is—at best—tentative, or—if being less mild—simply non-existent. Democracy is
not necessarily better than any alternative form of government. With regard to many of the expected benefts
—such as less war, less corruption and more economic development—democracy does deliver, but so
do nondemocratic systems. High or low levels of democracy do not make a distinctive difference. Mid-range democracy levels do
matter though. Hybrid systems can be associated with many negative outcomes, while this is also the case for democratizing countries.
Moreover, other explanations—typically certain favourable economic factors in a country—are much more powerful to explain the expected
benefts, at least compared to the single fact that a country is a democracy or not. The impact of democracy fades away in the powerful
shadows of the economic factors.8
2AC Uniqueness
 UQ -- Blue Slips
Blue-slip removal ensures appointments.
Klain ’17 [Ronald; November 21; former Senior Aide to President Obama, J.D. from Harvard University;
Washington Post, “Conservatives have a breathtaking plan for Trump to pack the courts,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-have-a-breathtaking-plan-for-trump-to-pack-
the-courts/2017/11/21/; RP]

Trump is wasting no time in filling the 103 judicial vacancies he inherited. In the first nine months of Obama's
tenure, he nominated 20 judges to the federal trial and appellate courts; in Trump's first nine months, he named 58.
Senate Republicans are racing these nominees through confirmation; last week, breaking a 100-year-old tradition,
they eliminated the "blue slip" rule that allowed home-state senators to object to particularly problematic
nominees. The rush to Trumpify the judiciary includes nominees rated unqualified by the American Bar Association, nominees with
outrageously conservative views and nominees significantly younger (and, therefore, likely to serve longer) than those of previous presidents.
As a result, by sometime next year, 1 in 8 cases filed in federal court will be heard by a judge picked by Trump.
Many of these judges will likely still be serving in 2050.
 UQ -- Donors
Courts look liberal now AND far-right donors thump.
Williams ’17 [Joseph; October 27; Editor; U.S. News & World Report, “The Judicial Puppet Master,”
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-10-27/leonard-leo-is-calling-the-shots-on-
judicial-appointments; RP]

Yet control of the court are the spoils of the 2016 election, and so far Republicans haven't been inclined to
question or scrutinize Leo's nominees. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, under pressure from big-money
donors, has said he wants to put judicial confirmations on an even faster track by eliminating "blue slips” – a
century-old Senate tradition Democrats have used to disrupt the parade of far-right nominees. "I think the goal is to transform the
federal bench so that it adheres to the rule of law more than it does today," Leo says says. "I wouldn't say [liberalism] is rampant but
I would say it's a serious problem. If you look at cases of significant consequence , a fair number of those do squarely
present this clash of ideas" and the outcomes, to him, haven't made sense. "This is a very critical period," Leo says, noting
that more judicial vacancies – retirements, judges going on part-time status – are happening nearly each week. "I do think by
all accounts [President Trump] has an understanding of what's at stake and a commitment" to follow through on the agenda .
 UQ -- Leo
He’s the conservative feeder system---makes restocking inevitable.
Williams ’17 [Joseph; October 27; Editor; U.S. News & World Report, “The Judicial Puppet Master,”
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-10-27/leonard-leo-is-calling-the-shots-on-
judicial-appointments; RP]

Long consigned to the fringes of the conservative movement and overshadowed during the Obama era, textualism has a
new ally in the Oval Office. And it is, quite likely, heading to a federal court near you. Having shepherded
Gorsuch to Supreme Court confirmation, Leo is working with the White House to install strict conservative
jurists throughout the lower federal courts, a development that could mean sweeping changes to how the law is
interpreted and expanding the reach of originalism from conservative think tanks into everyday life . Consider: Besides
functioning as a feeder system for future Supreme Court nominees, the federal courts, and the appellate
court in particular, have the power to shape the national social and legal landscape. Because the Supreme Court only accepts
a fraction of the cases filed to it, the judges serving lifetime appointments in appellate courts usually get the last word.
With the president's ear, GOP control of the White House and Senate, and minority Democrats stripped of the
right to block anyone Trump nominates to lifetime judgeships, Leo's behind-the-scenes influence is extraordinary for
an unelected official. That means the restocking of the federal bench, currently in process, will undoubtedly move the
courts to the right – top to bottom---and the political shift will last for generations. "I have to admire how
effective he's been," says Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitution Society, a liberal think tank on the law
and public policy. "What I don't admire is his vision for America."
 UQ -- Fed-Soc
The Fed-Soc thumps.
Williams ’17 [Joseph; October 27; Editor; U.S. News & World Report, “The Judicial Puppet Master,”
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-10-27/leonard-leo-is-calling-the-shots-on-
judicial-appointments; RP]

Arguably the most powerful figure in the federal justice system, Leonard Leo doesn't wear a black robe or preside over a
courtroom. A trained attorney, he's neither a litigator nor a politician; anyone outside Washington's legal and political circles would be
hard-pressed to recognize his name or spot him in a crowd. Yet Leo is the unseen hand that has guided a third of
the Supreme Court's nine members to their positions on the bench, reinforcing a three-decades-long, 5-4
conservative majority in the process. That includes Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court's newest and perhaps most conservative
member, whom President Donald Trump selected from a candidate list Leo personally curated. Leo's roster of 21
judges and lawyers that he believes should fill any open Supreme Court seats all have strong ties to the Federalist
Society, a like-minded network of Constitutional scholars that not long ago was considered on the fringes of
conservative thought. A Federalist cofounder, Leo is now its impresario, using his vast web of connections to
recruit talented attorneys on the right and helping integrate them into positions of influence inside and outside of government.

Controls Trump’s packing plan.

Williams ’17 [Joseph; October 27; Editor; U.S. News & World Report, “The Judicial Puppet Master,”
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-10-27/leonard-leo-is-calling-the-shots-on-
judicial-appointments; RP]

Indeed, the list of candidates Leo gave to Trump is still in play: It's now the president's reference manual
for filling more than 150 federal judicial vacancies – and another Supreme Court vacancy, should it occur on
his watch. And it's Leo's blueprint for rebuilding the federal bench with uncompromising jurists who believe in less government, more
personal responsibility and laws that are written in stone.
 UQ -- Packing Now
Courts are packed now – Trump appointed 200 judges and the judiciary is now an arm
of the Republican party.
Hutzler ‘6/24 [Alexandra; staff writer on Newsweek's politics team; 6-24-2020; "Trump's impact on
courts cemented as 200th judge appointed to federal bench"; Newsweek;
https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-impact-courts-cemented-200th-judge-appointed-federal-bench-
1512833; accessed 7-2-2020; SM]

President Donald Trump's

impact on the U.S. court system was cemented on Wednesday after his 200th judicial
appointment was confirmed by the Senate.
The Senate confirmed Cory Wilson, a state court judge in Mississippi, to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-48 vote.

"No modern president has had this level of impact on the composition of the federal courts," said Jonathan
Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. "This is a master footprint for any president on the
judiciary."

Trump inherited 108 lifetime federal judicial vacancies when he entered office in 2017, the most for an
incoming president since Bill Clinton in 1992. With the help of Republicans in Congress, Trump has been
appointing federal judges at a historic pace.

In his first three and a half years in the Oval Office, Trump successfully appointed 53 circuit court judges, 143 trial
court judges, two international trade court judges and two Supreme Court justices.
By comparison, in his eight years in the White House, President Barack Obama landed 55 circuit judges, 268 trial court judges, four international
trade court judges and two Supreme Court justices.

Overall, Trump
has appointed more than one-fifth of the entire judiciary. And Republicans have their eyes on
even more confirmations before Election Day when Trump's chances of a second term and control of
the Senate will be on the ballot. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said his "motto for the year is 'leave no
vacancy behind.'"

Last month, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) urged older judges to retire so even more Trump appointees could
be packed into the court system. In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Graham said if you're a judge in your mid-
to-late 60s, now would be a "good time" to retire if "you want to make sure the judiciary is right of center."

Trump has also renewed his 2016 campaign message to fill the judiciary with conservatives amid his re-
election campaign. Last week, he tweeted that he will be releasing a new list of Supreme Court justice
nominees by September 1. If elected to a second term, it's possible Trump will be able to put a third
justice on the bench.
But the Trump administration has come under fire for its lack of diversity in judicial nominations because most of the appointees have been
white men. According to a report released earlier this year by the progressive judicial advocacy group Alliance for Justice, 85 percent of new
judges approved are white and nearly 76 percent of them are men.

"His judicial appointments have also been overwhelmingly white and male at a time when diversity on the bench is more important than ever.
It will take decades to undo the damage the Trump administration has done to our courts," said Russ Feingold,
president of the progressive legal organization American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Democratic lawmakers have also criticized the president's approach to appointing judges. Last month, liberal leaders in the Senate released a
report alleging that Republicans had taken over the federal court system through a strategy "well-funded by millions of dollars in anonymous,
special-interest money."
"Now, withthe addition of two hundred life-tenured Trump judges—more ideologically extreme and less
experienced than any crop of judges in our nation's history—our federal courts risk becoming little more
than an arm of the Republican Party's big donors," the report said.

Republicans have secretly packed the Courts – they’ve blocked Democratic

appointments and filled the judiciary with conservative elitists.
Berger ‘19 [Sam; Opinion contributor to USA Today; 5-7-19; "Conservatives are already packing the
courts. Democrats must respond to this power grab."; USA Today;
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/07/conservatives-packing-courts-democrats-must-
respond-column/3564022002/; Accessed 6-24-2020; AH]
Regardless of your views on proposals to reform the Supreme Court, there is important context to this discussion that is often missed:
Conservatives are already packing the courts. Senate Republicans have been changing the rules and
ignoring long-standing practices in order to fill the judiciary with narrow-minded conservative elitists.
Their goal is to use the courts to implement conservative policies, regardless of their popular support. The issue
we face now is how to respond to this power grab.

Conservatives have done everything they can to keep their years-long court packing efforts under the
radar. Rather than start by adding new judges, they instead subtracted them, quietly refusing to let
President Barack Obama appoint judges. Then, under President Donald Trump, they have changed the rules
to fill those seats with ultra-right wing judges at breakneck speed.

The numbers tell a stark story. In

Trump’s first two years, Senate Republicans confirmed 30 appellate court
judges; they only confirmed two in Obama’s final two years. This disparity is highly unusual: by comparison, a Democratic
Senate confirmed 10 appellate judges in President George W. Bush’s final two years, compared to 16 judges in Obama’s first two.

Republicans filibustered Obama’s nominations, implemented internal rule changes,

held open 110 judicial seats, and appointed conservative justices to 20% of appellate
courts.
Berger ‘19 [Sam; Opinion contributor to USA Today; 5-7-19; "Conservatives are already packing the
courts. Democrats must respond to this power grab."; USA Today;
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/07/conservatives-packing-courts-democrats-must-
respond-column/3564022002/; Accessed 6-24-2020; AH]
GOP manipulates the rules for its benefit

When they took control of the Senate in 2014, Republicans effectively nullified Obama’s judicial
appointment authority. Obama’s last two years as president saw the fewest confirmed judges in more
than half a century. And this was after Senate Republicans had spent years using procedural moves to block
judges nominated by Obama even when they did not control the Senate. Democrats had to choose
between leaving the judicial seats vacant or changing a Senate filibuster rule so they could fill them by a simple
majority vote. In 2013 they made that change through a procedure known as the "nuclear option."

By the end of the Obama presidency , Senate Republicans had held open more than 110 judicial seats.
They made clear that such efforts would continue under any future Democratic president: Sen. John McCain
stated that, “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.”

Once Trump was elected, Republicans rushed to change the rules and swiftly usher in narrow-minded,
elitist judges whom they knew would advance conservative policies through the courts. They used the nuclear option
to allow approval of Supreme Court justices by majority vote. They
ended a long-standing tradition of giving senators a
say in the confirmation of judges in their home state. They refused to provide sufficient time for the
American Bar Association to determine whether Trump’s nominees were qualified to be judges, resulting in
Trump nominating six people deemed “not qualified.” Incredibly, they held hearings for judges when the Senate
was not even in session.
Ideologues threaten independent judiciary

The result: the appointment of extremist right-wing judges with little oversight. Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court despite
concerns that he had previously misled Congress and the credible allegations of sexual assault made against him. But Kavanaugh is not the only
questionable nominee to be rushed through the process. One judge was confirmed despite ties to the anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom,
another despite having engaged in efforts to take away protections for people with pre-existing health conditions.

With nearly half of his presidency remaining, Trump has already appointed more than 100 judges to the
bench — more than one-tenth of the entire federal judiciary and 20% of the appellate courts. And Senate
Republicans recently changed another rule that will allow them to speed up confirmation of lower-level
judges.

There are no federal circuit court vacancies – McConnell packed all of them.
Olson ‘6/24 [Tyler; politics reporter; 6-24-2020; "Senate confirms Trump's 200th judge, officially fills all
appeals court vacancies"; Fox News; https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-confirms-trumps-200th-
judge-officially-fills-all-appeals-court-vacancies; accessed 7-2-2020; SM]

"No vacancy left behind."

That quote, repeated over and over by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in the past year -- to cheers from Republicans and
the outrage of Democrats -- has been the creed behind the Senate's single-minded push to confirm as many
Trump-nominated federal judges as possible. And the 52-48 confirmation of Cory Wilson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit on Wednesday means that McConnell, in one respect, has quite literally accomplished that goal.

Wilson fills the final remaining federal circuit court vacancy. None have been left behind.

Wilson also marks the 200th overall lifetime-appointed Article III judge to be confirmed by the Senate during Trump's
presidency. Article III courts include federal district courts, circuit courts of appeals, the Supreme Court and
the U.S. Court of International Trade. That pace is faster than every other president in history except
for Jimmy Carter. President Trump's appointees now make up more than one-quarter of the federal judiciary -- a
legacy that will long outlast him and McConnell, the author of a memoir titled "The Long Game."
"The single most consequential thing we can do is these lifetime appointments of men and women to the court who believe that the job of a
judge is to follow the law," McConnell told the annual Values Voter conference in 2018.

And on Wednesday, McConnell said on the floor of the Senate that, "[o]nce we confirm Judge Wilson today, the Senate will have confirmed
200, 200 of President Trump's nominees to lifetime appointments on the federal bench. And following number 200, when we depart this
chamber today, there will not be a single circuit court vacancy in the country anywhere in the nation for the
first time in at least 40 years."

Packing now.
Copland and Manguel ’19 [James and Rafael; Winter 2019; Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute
and director of Legal Policy, J.D. and M.B.A. from Yale University, M.Sc. from the London School of
Economics; Deputy Director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute, J.D. from DePaul University in
Chicago; City Journal, “Toward a Less Dangerous Judicial Branch,” https://www.city-
journal.org/html/toward-less-dangerous-judicial-branch-16471.html; RP]

Among Trump’s first moves in office was the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, confirmed by the Senate on April 7, 2017, to
fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of conservative stalwart Antonin Scalia in February 2016. Anthony
Kennedy’s retirement in June 2018 opened a second Court vacancy. President Trump’s nominee to fill that seat, Brett
Kavanaugh, seemed well on his way to certain confirmation when it was leaked that Christine Blasey Ford had accused him of assaulting her
while in high school. Ultimately, now-Justice Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed by a near-party-line vote. Trump has thus
filled two of the nine seats on the nation’s high court in his first two years in office. It’s too soon to know exactly what kind of
justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will be, but both are legal superstars with clear conservative judicial records. Trump has delivered for voters
who prioritized the Supreme Court as an issue. Moreover, the Trump administration, to date, has
significantly outpaced its
recent predecessors in winning Senate confirmations to the U.S. Courts of Appeal. Federal appellate courts
are the courts of last resort in far more cases than will ever find their way onto the Supreme Court docket. (The
Supreme Court has typically issued 70 to 80 merits opinions per term in recent years; federal appellate courts receive tens of thousands of
filings every year.) Through November, Trump had appointed 29 of the 166 authorized active judgeships in the 12
regional Courts of Appeals—compared with 11 by the same time in Barack Obama’s presidency, 12 for George W. Bush, and 19 for Bill
Clinton. And several more circuit court nominees await their confirmations. Trump’s nominees to federal district
courts have been confirmed relatively less quickly. Through November 2018, the Senate had approved 53 of his
nominees for district courts, compared with 30 for Obama, 83 for Bush, and 107 for Clinton at the same point in their presidencies. But
Trump has more than 50 district-court nominees pending, and many are likely to be confirmed—if not during the
lame-duck period after the election, then by the new Senate, with a slightly larger Republican majority .
 UQ -- Senate Elections
Senate elections ensure continued court packing.
Copland and Mangual ’19 [James and Rafael; Winter 2019; Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute
and Director of Legal Policy, J.D. and M.B.A. from Yale; Fellow and Deputy Director of Legal Policy, J.D.
from DePaul University; City Journal, “Toward a Less Dangerous Judicial Branch,” https://www.city-
journal.org/html/toward-less-dangerous-judicial-branch-16471.html; RP]

Last fall’s Senate elections were thus critical to ensuring that the Trump administration continues to
reshape the federal judiciary—something that now seems highly likely through 2020. Partisan struggles over the
Supreme Court’s composition are nothing new, but the stakes have risen, and senatorial comity has eroded, across administrations of both
parties. Real questions exist about what a future Democratic president and Congress might do in terms of adding new justices and judgeships to
achieve their preferred jurisprudential results.
 UQ -- Vacancies
Vacancy numbers trigger the impact.
Klain ’17 [Ronald; November 21; former Senior Aide to President Obama, J.D. from Harvard University;
Washington Post, “Conservatives have a breathtaking plan for Trump to pack the courts,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-have-a-breathtaking-plan-for-trump-to-pack-
the-courts/2017/11/21/; RP]

Conservatives have a new court-packing plan, and in the spirit of the holiday, it's a turducken of a scheme: a
regulatory rollback hidden inside a civil rights reversal stuffed into a Trumpification of the courts. If conservatives get
their way, President Trump will add twice as many lifetime members to the federal judiciary in the next 12 months
(650) as Barack Obama named in eight years (325). American law will never be the same. The "outer turkey" in the plan
is the ongoing Trumpification of the courts. In the final two years of Obama's presidency , Senate Republicans engaged
in tenacious obstruction to leave as many judicial vacancies unfilled as possible. The Garland-to-Gorsuch Supreme
Court switch is the most visible example of this tactic but far from the only one : Due to GOP obstruction, "the number
of [judicial] vacancies . . . on the table when [Trump] was sworn in was unprecedented," White House Counsel Donald
McGahn recently boasted to the conservative Federalist Society.
 UQ -- AT: Administrative Law
Conservatives will infiltrate administrative law.
Klain ’17 [Ronald; November 21; former Senior Aide to President Obama, J.D. from Harvard University;
Washington Post, “Conservatives have a breathtaking plan for Trump to pack the courts,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-have-a-breathtaking-plan-for-trump-to-pack-
the-courts/2017/11/21/; RP]

But even that isn't enough for the Turducken Court Packers. They have jammed one more "treat" inside this turkey. Calabresi
has also proposed that Congress abolish 158 administrative law judgeships in federal regulatory agencies, such
as the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Securities and
Exchange Commission, and replace these impartial fact-finders with a new corps of 158 Trump-selected judges who
— unlike current administrative law judges — would serve for life. These new Trump administrative law judges would have
vast power over environmental, health and safety, fair competition, communications, labor, financial and
consumer regulation for decades. Unlike the existing administrative law judges, selected as nonpartisan members of the
civil service, Calabresi's replacement corps would all be picked in a single year, by a single man: Donald J. Trump.
2AC Link
 UQ -- Activism
Packing-associated activism’s non-unique.
Copland and Manguel ’19 [James and Rafael; Winter 2019; Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute
and director of Legal Policy, J.D. and M.B.A. from Yale University, M.Sc. from the London School of
Economics; Deputy Director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute, J.D. from DePaul University in
Chicago; City Journal, “Toward a Less Dangerous Judicial Branch,” https://www.city-
journal.org/html/toward-less-dangerous-judicial-branch-16471.html; RP]

Democrats remain bitter about the Republican Senate’s refusal to act on President Obama’s nomination of
Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court seat vacated by Scalia’s death. Grassroots activists have pressured Senate
Democratic leaders to block any and all Trump appointees. Some voices—even normally sensible scholars like Yale legal
historian John Fabian Witt—have called on Democrats to increase the size of the Court, packing it with Democratic
partisans to make up for Garland’s failed nomination. The Constitution provides no fixed number of justices for the Supreme
Court, though the number has remained at nine by custom since 1869. If “court-packing” were to ensue, there is no logical endpoint for the
partisan retribution, short of an unlikely constitutional amendment. Partisan
wrangling over the Supreme Court has a long
history, rooted in the decision of the Constitution’s framers to vest authority over lifetime judicial appointments jointly with
the president and the Senate. From 1881 through 1969, though, no Senate majority blocked an opposing-party president’s Supreme Court
nominee. The few contested nominations tended to be controversial for idiosyncratic rather than partisan reasons
because for most of that period, every president nominating a Supreme Court justice did so when his party also controlled the Senate. But
even as Supreme Court confirmation fights became rare, the Court itself grew more active—and
controversial. Most tragically, the Court refused to enforce postwar legislation and constitutional amendments designed to ensure newly
freed slaves’ civil and voting rights. (Congress offered little pushback, soon giving up on Reconstruction.) Beginning in the 1890s, as populist and
then progressive movements led Congress to enact more sweeping laws governing economic concerns, the Supreme Court began
striking some of them down—either as outside Congress’s power to regulate commerce or under property-rights or liberty-of-contract
rationales. After the Court overturned key legislative planks of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, an
infuriated Roosevelt introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which would have packed the Supreme
Court with more favorable justices. Roosevelt’s bill was not enacted, but he prevailed in another way. In the “switch in time that saved nine,”
a five-justice Court majority reversed its earlier jurisprudence and upheld the state of Washington’s minimum-wage law (West Coast Hotel v.
Parrish, 1937). That summer, the first Court vacancy in Roosevelt’s tenure opened up. As Roosevelt began filling seats, the
Court’s
jurisprudence shifted. By 1943, FDR had nominated all but one of the Court’s sitting justices, and the Court had
enshrined a presumption of constitutionality for economic legislation and stretched the scope of Congress’s power to regulate interstate
commerce beyond recognition. And the Court’s deference to the elected branches wasn’t limited to the economic
sphere; it upheld the Roosevelt administration’s wartime internment of more than 100,000 individuals of Japanese descent,
including American citizens, in Korematsu v. United States(1944). Soon, however, the Supreme Court began reasserting itself
over the political branches, state and federal. Initially, the renewed Court action involved a long- overdue
reversal of its earlier jurisprudence gutting civil rights for blacks—most famously, in its 1954 school-desegregation decision, Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. But in short order, the Court began assuming authority over many other disputes
previously relegated to the political process. Over a ten-year period beginning in the early 1960s, the Court
aggressively reshaped state criminal procedures; significantly scaled back expressions of religion in public schools;
and even (for a time) forbade capital punishment for all crimes, notwithstanding express language contemplating such penalties in
the text of the Constitution. In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Court found a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy in the Constitution. Roe’s
author, Justice Harry Blackmun, had been President Richard’s Nixon’s third-choice nominee for the Court in 1970; the
Democrat-led
Senate had scuttled Nixon’s first two picks, the first partisan rejections of a Supreme Court nomination in almost
nine decades.
 UQ -- Bostock
Bostock was a landmark progressive ruling that flies in the face of past conservative
orthodoxy.
Schacter ’20 [Jane; June 15; Professor of Law at Stanford University; Stanford Law School, “Bostock and
Changes of the Guard at the Supreme Court,” https://law.stanford.edu/2020/06/15/bostock-and-
changes-of-the-guard-at-the-supreme-court/; RP]
In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars sex
discrimination in employment. The issue was whether an employee who was fired expressly for being gay or transgender had been fired based
on sex, coming within the purview of the statute. By a 6-3 margin, the Court ruled for the employees, reasoning that it
is impossible to take action against an employee based on sexual orientation or gender identity without
acting, in the language of Title VII, “because of” the employee’s sex. This is a blockbuster ruling by any standard. While the
Supreme Court affirmed marriage equality in 2015, it has nevertheless been the case that same-sex couples
could be “married on Sunday and fired on Monday” because many states have no job protections for gay employees and
the federal protection, Title VII, had not been interpreted to cover them . That is no longer true. Equally
momentous, the Court held that the Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination also protects transgender
employees.

The opinion is perhaps most surprising because two members of the Court’s conservative wing joined the
opinion, with Justice Gorsuch writing, and Chief Justice Roberts joining, the majority. It is notable, as well, that the
opinion reaches a historic progressive result through methodologies typically associated with more
conservative approaches to the law. In this brief commentary, I consider what the opinion might reflect about Justice Gorsuch in
contrast to two of his predecessors—Justices Scalia and Kennedy.

It was an unprecedented betrayal that marks the end of the conservative legal
movement.
Barnes ’20 [Robert; June 16; Reporter covering the U.S. Supreme Court; Washington Post, “Neil
Gorsuch? The surprise behind the Supreme Court’s surprising LGBTQ decision.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/neil-gorsuch-gay-transgender-rights-supreme-
court/2020/06/16/112f903c-afe3-11ea-8f56-63f38c990077_story.html; RP]

If the first shock Monday morning was that the conservative Supreme Court had delivered a landmark
victory to gay and transgender workers, the second was the opinion’s author: President Trump’s first nominee
for the high court, Neil M. Gorsuch.

In his 38 months on the court, Gorsuch

has shown himself to be one of its most conservative members, more
comfortable on the right edge with Justice Clarence Thomas than toward the middle with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
He’s been known more for his dissents than his majority opinions, and it is not usually the case that the most junior member of the majority
take the lead in writing what will be one of the most famous cases of the term.

But those who saw oral arguments in the cases now collectively known as Bostock v. Clayton County knew that Gorsuch seemed key.

Stanford law professor Pamela S. Karlan and ACLU Legal Director David Cole, representing, respectively, the gay workers and transgender
plaintiff Aimee Stephens, passed up an appeal to fairness or equality in favor of arguing that the broad text of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act already protected their clients.

At argument, Gorsuch seemed to accept the view. “Assume for the moment I’m with you on the textual evidence. It’s close, okay?” Gorsuch
said to Cole.
But at the end of the day, he asked, should a judge “take into consideration the massive social upheaval that would be entailed in such a
decision, and the possibility that — that Congress didn’t think about it.”

Cole replied: “It’s not asking you to address a policy question that would be more appropriate to Congress but asking you to interpret the
statute as it is written.”

Left unsaid was that Gorsuch himself had counseled just such an approach in a book he published last summer, “A Republic, If You Can Keep
It.” In it, he made an extensive case for “textualism,” meaning that the words of the statute in question take prominence, not the intentions of
legislators or the consequences of the judicial decision.

“The text of the statute and only the text becomes law,” Gorsuch wrote in the book. “Not a legislator’s unexpressed intentions, not nuggets
buried in the legislative history, and certainly not a judge’s policy preferences.”

In Monday’s ruling, Gorsuch joined the court’s four liberals — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor
and Elena Kagan — as well as Roberts, who had not shown his hand at oral argument and had been in dissent five years ago when the
court held that the Constitution protected a right for same-sex couples to marry.

But at oral argument in that case, Obergefell v. Hodges, Roberts suggested the outcome might be different in a case of statutory interpretation.
“If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t,” Roberts told one of the lawyers. “And the difference is based upon their
different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

That was basically the opinion that Gorsuch wrote in Bostock, and Roberts joined.

“It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on
sex,” Gorsuch wrote. An example: If an employer “fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the
employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.”

Gorsuch acknowledged that members of Congress in 1964 were not intending to protect LGBTQ individuals, but what mattered, he said, is the
law they wrote.

“Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

That result was just what some conservatives had feared since the October arguments in the cases. The Wall
Street Journal’s conservative editorial board warned Gorsuch and Roberts last fall that they were being hoodwinked and on
the verge of misusing textualism.

Earlier this year, conservative columnist Josh Hammer tweeted: “There

is a rumor rapidly circulating in legal conservative
circles that Gorsuch is going to side with the liberals and read transgenderism into Title VII . I’m a longtime
Gorsuch skeptic, but this would certainly be an unprecedented betrayal. Let’s hope it’s not true.”

The decision separated Gorsuch from two justices with whom he often sides — Thomas and Samuel A. Alito
Jr. — and from fellow Trump nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“Obviously, there will be some close cases,” Gorsuch wrote in his book. “And in those close cases we can expect that lawyers and judges of
good faith will debate vigorously what the traditional tools of statutory interpretation suggest about a particular text’s meaning.”

In his dissent that was joined by Thomas, Alito called Gorsuch’s interpretation “preposterous.”

“A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall,” he added.
Justice Antonin Scalia, the modern justice most conservative members of the court seem to strive to emulate, was an advocate of textualism,
and his views were cited by Gorsuch. Alito told him not to claim Scalia’s mantle.

“The court’s opinion is like a pirate ship,” Alito wrote. “It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually
represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated — the theory that courts
should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.”

Kavanaugh was less vitriolic, but said Gorsuch had misused textualism.
“There is no serious debate about the foundational interpretive principle that courts adhere to ordinary
meaning, not literal meaning, when interpreting statutes,” wrote Kavanaugh, who often disagrees with Gorsuch. “As Justice
Scalia explained, ‘the good textualist is not a literalist.’ ”

Immediate reactions to major Supreme Court decisions are often outsized, then revised when the next set of opinions
lands.

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a former Roberts clerk, said Tuesday that the
decision “represents the end of the
conservative legal movement.” Harvard law professor Noah Feldman wrote in a Bloomberg opinion piece that the
landmark ruling “will mean liberals must treat Gorsuch as a serious justice, not just a Trump minion.”
 UQ -- DACA
DACA signals broad court activism and undermines Robert’s centrist legitimacy.
Pergram ’20 [Chad; June 21; Congressional correspondent; Fox News, “DACA, LGBTQ decisions leave
some conservatives with Supreme Court buyers' remorse,” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/daca-
lgbt-decisions-leave-some-conservatives-with-supreme-court-buyers-remorse; RP]
Democratic senators suggested to Hillary Clinton that she renominate Garland if she won in 2016. But the GOP’s treatment of Garland only
intensified anger on the left when President Trump unexpectedly prevailed. Trump has already scored two justices in Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
In addition, McConnell has dedicated much of the Senate’s floor traffic over the past several years to installing
conservative jurists to federal courts.

So, after all of this energy to craft a conservative judiciary and a Supreme Court that tilts to the right, one
can understand why the right is apoplectic about the recent rulings.

Gorsuch wrote the majority 6-3 decision in the case barring employers from firing workers due to their sexual identity. Chief Justice John
Roberts provided the swing vote in the DACA case.

“You have a Supreme Court that appears to be legislating,” argued Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “What really
troubles a lot of people is that some of the folks the Republican party has put on this bench…are actively
becoming activists in the role that they’re playing. It’s concerning and frankly, undermines the purpose of
the court.”

Many Republicans attacked Roberts – a frequent target of their derision. They still hold a grudge against him for not
overturning ObamaCare in 2012. Roberts also sided with liberals on the court in 2019, blocking the Trump
administration from adding a question over citizenship on the 2020 census forms.

“Judging is not a game. It’s not supposed to be a game. But sadly over recent years, more and more, Chief Justice Roberts
has been playing games with the court to achieve the policy outcomes he desires,” charged Sen. Ted Cruz, R-
Texas, in a feisty floor speech Thursday afternoon. “That’s not clever. That’s lawless. The decision today was lawless.”

“Chief Justice Roberts does it again, convoluting the law to appease the D.C. establishment,” blasted Rep.
Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the leading Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “The court’s decision creates two standards of executive
power. One for President Obama and another for President Trump.”

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., went even further than his GOP colleagues.

“If the chief justice believes his political judgment is so exquisite, I invite him to resign, travel to Iowa and get
elected,” said Cotton. “I suspect voters will find his strange views no more compelling than do the principled justices on the court.”

So Republicans are in a period of serious buyer’s remorse. They’ve invested all of this time stocking the
judiciary, and they’re not getting the judicial outcomes they want.

The fact that the Supreme Court never undercut ObamaCare haunts Republicans to this day. The DACA decision
echoes, too.

It firmly positions Roberts against Trump.

Totenberg ’20 [Nina; June 18; Award-winning legal affairs correspondent, honored seven times by the
American Bar Association; NPR, “Supreme Court Rules For DREAMers, Against Trump,”
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-upholds-daca-in-blow-to-trump-
administration; RP]
In a major rebuke to President Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the administration's plan to
dismantle an Obama-era program that has protected 700,000 so-called DREAMers from deportation. The vote was 5-4, with
Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion.

Under the Obama program, qualified individuals brought to the U.S. as children were given temporary legal status if they graduated from high
school or were honorably discharged from the military, and if they passed a background check. Just months after taking office, Trump moved to
revoke the program, only to be blocked by lower courts — and now the Supreme Court.

Roberts' opinion for the court was a narrow but powerful rejection of the way the Trump administration went about
trying to abolish the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote. "The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern.
Here we address only whether the Administration complied with the procedural requirements in the law that insist on 'a reasoned explanation
for its action.' "
 UQ -- AT: CFPB
CFPB ruling was a liberal win after years of GOP opposition---recognized the
constitutionality of the position itself and the law it created
Dan Mangan and Tucker Higgins 6/29, 6/29/20, “Supreme Court leaves consumer regulator standing
but backs president’s ability to fire director,” CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/supreme-court-
leaves-consumer-regulator-standing-but-backs-presidents-ability-to-fire-director.html

But Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who first envisioned the CFPB while a professor at Harvard
Law School, in a tweet responding to the ruling wrote, “Let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: after years
of industry attacks and GOP opposition, a conservative Supreme Court recognized what we all knew: the
@CFPB itself and the law that created it is constitutional”

“The CFPB is here to stay,” Warren added.

It simply followed existing precedent---Roberts made it clear principal officers of

agencies have rarely been protected from removal
Dan Mangan and Tucker Higgins 6/29, 6/29/20, “Supreme Court leaves consumer regulator standing
but backs president’s ability to fire director,” CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/supreme-court-
leaves-consumer-regulator-standing-but-backs-presidents-ability-to-fire-director.html

Roberts noted that the leadership structure of the CFPB “has no foothold in history or tradition,” and that
Congress has given protection from removal to principal officers of agencies in just four “isolated
instances.”

Those were for the the comptroller of the currency for just a one-year period during the Civil War, the
Office of Special Counsel, the administrator of the Social Security Administration, and the director of the
Federal Housing Finance Agency.

“Aside from the one-year blip for the Comptroller of the Currency, these
examples are modern and contested ; and they do
not involve regulatory or enforcement authority comparable to that exercised by the CFPB,” Roberts
wrote.

He added that, “The

CFPB’s single Director configuration is also incompatible with the structure of the
Constitution, which — with the sole exception of the Presidency — scrupulously avoids concentrating power in the
hands of any single individual.”
 UQ -- AT: Religious Schools
It was a non-partisan affirmation of religious and socioeconomic equality
Dan Mclaughlin 6/30, 6-30-2020, "School Choice Defeats Anti-Catholic Bigotry 5–4 at the Supreme
Court," National Review, https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/school-choice-defeats-anti-catholic-
bigotry-5-4-at-the-supreme-court/

Today, Alito drove that point home directly, arguing that the Court should pull up the Blaine amendments by the
roots due to their Klan support and other obviously bigoted motivations behind them. Historically, he trained
his fire directly at Horace Mann, the father of American public education, for aiming to impose the state’s vision to wean
children away from Catholicism. Alito’s opinion serves as a marker and a warning that liberals have at least as much to
lose as conservatives from getting too deep into the motives behind laws. He makes a point that resonates with
religious parents today:

Catholic and Jewish schools sprang up [in the 19th century] because the common schools were not neutral on
matters of religion. Faced with public schools that were culturally Protestant and with curriculums and textbooks that were, consequently,
rife with material that Catholics and Jews found offensive, many Catholics and Orthodox Jews created separate schools, and those who could
afford to do so sent their children to those schools. . . . [Montana’s]program helped parents of modest means do what
more affluent parents can do: send their children to a school of their choice. The argument that the decision below
treats everyone the same is reminiscent of Anatole France’s sardonic remark that “ the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the
rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread .” [Quotations and
citations omitted]
 NL -- Democrats Block
Dems are combative now which solves any district appointments
Levine 4-13 – staff writer at Politco (Marianne, "Senate hits pause on confirming Trump’s judges ,"
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/13/senate-trump-judges-coronavirus-175188 4-13-20)//gc

“The administration and the chairman will want to hit the ground running and burn some midnight oil in the month of May
to try to catch up at least a little bit,” Leo said. “The question is how cooperative the Democrats will be at that time.”
He added that ideally some Democratic cooperation will be needed for scheduling hearings and reviewing
questionnaires "expeditiously.” “Everybody when they get back to Washington will want to try to return things to normalcy as much as
possible " he said. "Nominations should be no different." But Democrats are not exactly feeling collaborative. "We have
thought [McConnell] has abused that process for years now," Durbin said. "And I for one am not going to make it any
easier for him to put in these judges." In the wake of the virus, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) acknowledged the Senate Judiciary
Committee may need to find some “creative ways” to address the vacancies. But he said the Senate’s past focus on judges is
cushioning the virus’ effect.

They have to sign off on any appointments

Cioffi 5-13 – staff writer at Roll Call (Chris, "Trump brags about judge picks, but are Democrats OK with
them?," Roll Call, https://www.rollcall.com/2020/05/13/senate-democrats-sore-on-right-wing-judges-
but-theyre-ok-with-the-nominees-headed-to-floor-soon/ 5-13-2020)// gcd

Senate Democrats consistently bemoan the chamber’s processing of “right-wing judges.” And though some jurists are indeed
controversial, several of those getting a Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday received sign-off from
Democrats in the affected states. President Donald Trump needs to make selections supported by
Democrats to keep up his pace on judicial nominees, an especially tricky feat as the 2020 elections approach. But so far it
appears the president has been able to find some allies . The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on 10
nominees Thursday, including four district court nominees from states with at least one Democratic senator. Though home-state senators don’t
get much of a say on circuit court nominees any more, they
still provide input on the district level . Senate Judiciary Chairman
Lindsey Graham has said he will continue honoring blue slips — small blue-tinted questionnaires sent to home-state senators who
are asked to check “approve” or “oppose” — for judges on the district level , despite recently not honoring them for circuit court
nominees.
 NL -- Trump Won’t Push
Trump won’t pack courts.
Ayesh and Perano 19 [Rashaan; Ursula; political reporters; 4-13-2019, "Court packing: Where the
2020 candidates stand"; Axios; https://www.axios.com/court-packing-where-2020-candidates-stand-
aff0e431-7624-42f0-b37f-a9091d1652f9.html; dhs-brt]

Who opposes court packing:

President Trump said he "wouldn't entertain" the idea of court packing, reports Reuters. Trump said Democrats have
only proposed the idea because "they want to try to catch up."

Former Vice President Joe Biden: "No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court , because we’ll live to rue that
day."
 NL -- AT: CJR
Republicans are pro-CJR reform – they’ve realized law-and-order rhetoric is
unsustainable.
Swan ‘6/9 [Jonathan; national political reporter at Axios; 6-9-2020; "Inside Senate Republicans' plan for
police reform"; Axios; https://www.axios.com/senate-republicans-police-reform-8233534b-22fa-46d8-
9bb0-9233b82a1c34.html; accessed 7-2-2020; SM]

Senate Republicans are crafting a package of police reforms that would make lynching a federal crime and
threaten to cut federal grants if states don't force their police departments to report significantly more
detail on officers' use of force, according to two sources familiar with the internal conversations.

Why this matters: Republicans have recognized that it's

politically unsustainable to simply hammer a "law-and-
order" message, and that they need to propose measures to respond to the national outcry for police
reform after the killing of George Floyd.
To lead this effort, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) turned to Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the only African-American in
the Republican conference and a senator with a substantial history of proposing criminal justice and police reform legislation.

The big picture: "We don't have the data we need to understand when, where, why and how these tragic incidents are happening in totality,"
said Sean Smith, communications director for Scott, who is leading the Republican working group on police reform.

Behind the scenes: Other members of the group are Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Ben
Sasse (R-Neb.), and James Lankford (R-Okla.).

Scott met this afternoon with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner and senior official
Ja'Ron Smith to share details of the Senate proposal and to discuss where they might find common ground.

Details: Two sources familiar with the Senate working group discussions said the Republican police reform proposal will likely
include the following measures:

A federal requirement for states who receive federal grants for law enforcement to report uses of force
that cause death or serious injury. If states fail to comply, they could lose 10% of their federal grant
money. (This would expand the Walter Scott Notification Act — a bill Scott has been introducing since 2015 — and is viewed as a direct
response to the violent act that killed George Floyd. The officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeled on Floyd's neck.)

Require states to provide data on the use of "no knock" search warrants. (This is also an expansion of the Walter
Scott Notification Act, and is a direct response to the killing of Breonna Taylor after Louisville police officers used a battering ram to crash into
her apartment.)

Expand federal grants to recruit police officers who have similar backgrounds to the communities they
serve.

Increase funding for body cameras. This idea is also based on legislation Scott been introducing since 2015 (the Safer Officers
and Safer Communities Act). The working group has also been discussing cutting federal grants to states whose
police officers fail to to use those body cameras.

Wrap in the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act , which would make lynching a federal crime.

Create a "National Criminal Justice Commission" to do a "comprehensive review of the system and make
recommendations for reform."
Other ideas they're discussing include tying federal grants to training on alternatives to using force and
incentivizing "use of force review boards" (review boards where communities work with police departments in reviewing use of
force incidents).

The GOP supports CJR – the Justice Act proves.

Mascaro and Mustian ‘6/17 [Lisa; reporter for ABC; Jim; reporter for ABC; 6-17-2020; "Senate
Republicans to propose policing changes in 'Justice Act'"; ABC 13 News; https://abc13.com/justice-act-
police-reform-senate-bill/6251790/; accessed 7-2-2020; SM]

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans unveiled proposed changes to police procedures and accountability
Wednesday including an enhanced use-of-force database, restrictions on chokeholds and new commissions
to study law enforcement and race , according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.

The "Justice Act" is the most ambitious GOP policing proposal in years, a direct response to the massive
public protests over the death of George Floyd and other black Americans.

"We're serious about making a law here," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.., at a press conference at
the Capitol announcing the swift launch of floor debate next week. The Senate's lone black Republican, Tim Scott of South Carolina, led a task
force of GOP senators in compiling the package.

Scott spoke of his own experiences being stopped by police and urged colleagues to understand it's "not a binary choice" between supporting
black people or law enforcement.

"We hear you," he said to the families of those Americans killed by police. "We're listening to your concerns."

The 106-page bill is not as sweeping as a Democratic proposal, which is set for a House vote next week, but it shows how swiftly the
national debate has been transformed as Republicans embrace a new priority in an election year.

The GOP legislation would beef up requirements for law enforcement to compile use-of-force reports
under a new George Floyd and Walter Scott Notification Act , named for the Minnesota man whose May 25 death sparked
worldwide protests over police violence, and Scott, a South Carolina man shot by police after a traffic stop in 2015. Scott is not related to the
senator.

It would also establish the Breonna Taylor Notification Act to track "no-knock" warrants. The 26-year-old was
killed after police in Kentucky used a no-knock warrant to enter her Louisville home.

Focusing on ending chokeholds, the legislation encourages agencies to do away with the practice or risk
losing federal funds. Many big city departments have long stopped the use. The legislation also provides funding for
training to "de-escalate" situations and establish a "duty to intervene" protocol to prevent excessive
force.

The GOP effort seeks to reach across the aisle to Democrats in several ways. It includes one long-sought
bill to make lynching a federal hate crime and another to launch a study of the social status of black
men and boys that has been touted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
McConnell on Wednesday challenged Democrats in the Senate not to block consideration next week, but to allow the debate to begin.

The Republican package - dubbed the "Just and Unifying Solutions To Invigorate Communities Everywhere Act of 2020" - also includes a
bipartisan Senate proposal to establish a National Criminal Justice Commission Act and extends funding streams for various federal law
enforcement programs, including the COPS program important to states.

The package includes a mix of other proposals, including tapping the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture
to create a law enforcement training curriculum on "the history of racism in the United States." Another closes a loophole to prohibit federal
law enforcement officers from engaging in sexual acts with those being arrested or in custody.
Expenditures for the bill would be considered on an emergency basis, so as not to count against federal deficits.

The GOP proposal comes amid a crush of activity from Washington as President Donald Trump announced executive
actions Tuesday to create a database of police misconduct.

At a Rose Garden event, he declared himself "committed to working with Congress on additional measures."

CJR is trans-partisan – both parties want reform but have different motivations
Teles and Degan ’16 - Professor of Political Science at the Johns Hopkins University, and Senior Fellow
at the Niskanen Center, PhD candidate in political science at Johns Hopkins University (Steven and David,
“Conservatives and Criminal Justice,” National Affairs, Vol 44,
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-criminal-justice)//ly

Liberals and conservatives have arrived at these conclusions from different principles. Liberals tend to
view "mass incarceration" as a product of structural racism and crony capitalism, and emphasize the
disadvantaged conditions of most offenders. Conservatives see the expansion of prisons as a case of
big government run amok and stress the potential for offenders to be spiritually redeemed . These
distinct narratives make prison reform a case of "trans-partisanship" — agreement on policy goals
driven by divergent, deeply held ideological beliefs. This is very different from bipartisanship, in which established
institutions facilitate compromise by bringing two sides together to split the difference with "grand bargains" brokered by party leaders.
Trans-partisanship, by contrast, is typically led by ideological true-believers on the back benches, and
distinct factions that converge on shared policy positions through separate, independent routes . Trans-
partisan agreement on criminal justice was a long time in the making. It was driven by ideological diehards on both sides ,
who worked for years against near-hopeless odds before their labors bore fruit. On the right, the evangelical leader Charles
Colson was arguing even at the height of the crime war that better prison conditions, less
incarceration, and better re-entry services were genuinely conservative objectives. On the left, the
American Civil Liberties Union, the Open Society Institute, and other organizations ensured that a
commitment to lowering incarceration would remain embedded in the liberal identity, even as
Democratic politicians tried their best to prove themselves "tough on crime." It was the conservatives
who required the more thoroughgoing change for trans-partisanship to become possible, moving from
the blunt party orthodoxy that "prison works" to the idea that excessive incarceration is just another
example of government overreach. Of course, Democratic politicians supported many of the policies now being decried as unduly
harsh. In some cases, that support grew out of a genuine conviction that government needed to crack down, but it was driven primarily by
electoral calculus, as liberals decided they could no longer afford to be attacked on the issue. The tough-on-crime ethos was never embedded
as deeply among liberals as it was among conservatives. As a result, the change in conservative politics created the political space for liberal
politicians to heed the cries of their own base to reconsider mass incarceration.

CJR is becoming more bipartisan – The First Step Act represents a key shift
NYT ’19 (Maggie Astor, “Left and Right Agree on Criminal Justice: They Were Both Wrong Before,”
5/16/19, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/politics/criminal-justice-system.html)//ly

One contributor to a new report on American criminal justice called the current system “an affront to our most
fundamental values of freedom, equality and liberty,” then suggested sentencing fewer people to
prison, sealing nonviolent criminal records and restoring voting rights for released offenders. Another wrote,
“To endlessly punish those who have paid their debt to society is simply immoral,” then suggested, well, sentencing fewer people to prison,
sealing nonviolent criminal records and restoring voting rights for released offenders. If the messages were similar, the messengers were far
from it. The first was Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, a Democratic candidate for president. The second was Mark Holden, a senior vice
president of the company owned by Charles G. and David H. Koch, who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting conservative
causes. And if the report showed one thing, it was this: There is a new bipartisan consensus on criminal justice, and it
is that the old consensus was wrong. Of the more than 20 politicians and activists who contributed
essays, all but three framed the issue explicitly as a matter of racial justice, emphasizing the deep
disparities in a system in which people of color are many times more likely than white people to be
incarcerated. Nine called for reducing or abolishing mandatory minimum sentences. Eight called for eliminating cash bail. Seven called for
alternatives to prison for nonviolent crimes. [Make sense of the people, issues and ideas shaping American politics with our newsletter.] The
report, published Thursday by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, is a sequel to one published four years ago, in which the
2016 presidential candidates outlined their criminal justice platforms. The
new essays, including those from eight
Democratic candidates and Jared Kushner, a senior adviser to President Trump, show how profoundly
the debate has changed. “In 2015, our goal was to get all of these candidates on record simply saying the word that they were
committed to reducing the prison population,” said Inimai M. Chettiar, who leads the center’s Justice Program and was an editor of the report.
“Four years later, I think it is a very different landscape, where they are not only committing to ending
mass incarceration but also coming forward with far bigger proposals and more specific proposals.” In
revealing bipartisan openness to change, the 2015 report was itself a major shift “after decades in which
candidates competed to see who was the most draconian on crime,” said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center. The new
bipartisanship has extended to Congress, which passed the First Step Act last year with support from
the Trump administration and groups as ideologically disparate as the Center for American Progress
and the American Conservative Union. The bill, among other things, reduced some mandatory
minimum sentences, expanded early-release programs and increased job training for former prisoners .
But now, the calls are for systemic change , not tinkering around the edges. Proposals that stood out in 2015, like restricting
employers from asking about criminal records on job applications, have become baselines. No one in the 2015 report suggested
decriminalizing marijuana, but Mr. Booker, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former
Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas did in the new one, and other candidates have suggested it
elsewhere. In 2015, limiting employers’ ability to ask about criminal history was the central proposal from Cornell William Brooks of the
N.A.A.C.P. This year, Mr. Booker, Mr. Kushner, Mr. O’Rourke and Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio all called for it. The new centerpieces
include eliminating cash bail and getting rid of mandatory minimum sentences altogether . Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand of New York suggested abandoning prison sentences for low-level offenses. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Ms. Warren and Mr.
O’Rourke proposed abolishing for-profit prisons, which, Mr. Sanders wrote, “have a greater interest in filling the pockets of their shareholders
by perpetuating imprisonment” than in rehabilitation.

CJR dovetails with a libertarian agenda.

Libertarian ’18 (“2018 Platform,” July 2018, https://www.lp.org/platform/)//ly
Individuals are inherently free to make choices for themselves and must accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.
Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or
disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may rightly initiate force against any
other individual, group, or government . Libertarians reject the notion that groups have inherent rights. We support the
rights of the smallest minority, the individual. 1.1 Self-Ownership Individuals own their bodies and have rights
over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what
they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. 1.2 Expression and
Communication We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation, or control of communications media
and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose
government actions which either aid or attack any religion. 1.3 Privacy Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency.
We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth
Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from
unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical,
and library records. 1.4 Personal Relationships Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government
does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting
adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate
practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply. 1.5 Abortion Recognizing that abortion is a
sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the
question to each person for their conscientious consideration. 1.6 Parental Rights Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their
children according to their own standards and beliefs, provided that the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also protected.
1.7 Crime and Justice. Government force must be limited to the protection of the rights of individuals to life,
liberty, and property, and governments must never be permitted to violate these rights. Laws should be
limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate
actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm . Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws
creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational
purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services . We support restitution to the victim to the fullest
degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer . The constitutional rights of the criminally
accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of
innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not
only the facts but also the justice of the law . We oppose the prosecutorial practice of “over-charging” in
criminal prosecutions so as to avoid jury trials by intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains .
1.8 Death Penalty We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state. 1.9 Self-Defense The only
legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property —
against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the
individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their
rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense
weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership,
manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.
 NL -- AT: Liberal Rulings
No link---criminal justice goes under the radar---and link non-UQ---the court’s already
perceived as liberal
Lee Simmons 15, 3-17-15, Writer for Stanford Business, Peer-Reviewed Source, “Neil Malhotra:
Debunking the Myth of the Liberal Supreme Court”, https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/neil-
malhotra-debunking-myth-liberal-supreme-court

How is this possible? Simple

ignorance plays a role. Test subjects who were unable to answer basic civics
questions — for example, on how justices are selected or who the chief justice is — were twice as likely to misperceive the
court as too liberal. Malhotra thinks age might also be a factor, with older voters remembering the progressive Warren Court of the
1950s and ’60s.

But more than anything, the

myth of the liberal court persists because right-wing pundits and politicians keep
asserting it as gospel. As in any campaign for share of mind, repetition matters more than truth. “If you go on talk radio,
they’re constantly bashing the court as liberal and activist,” Malhotra says. “What this paper shows is that it
works.”
That’s not to say the Levins, Limbaughs, and other culture warriors beating the drums of outrage are anything less than sincere. The human
tendency to focus selectively on what offends us easily tilts perceptions. The pattern of media coverage doesn’t help, either.

“The Roberts court almost always rules conservatively on business and criminal justice issues,” Malhotra says,
“but nobody hears about those cases.” A handful of rulings in which the court sided with liberals , however —
notably on Obamacare and same-sex marriage, including the latest state challenge by Alabama — have had news outlets hanging on
every word.

“The 10 cases we used in our study are representative of the overall mix — they’re essentially a random sample,” Malhotra says. “ What the
media covers is not a random sample.”
2AC Internal-Link
 IL -- Democrats Reverse
Democrats can reverse it.
Rosenberg ’17 [Paul; December 13; Columnist, citing the founder of the Federalist Society; Salon,
“GOP’s court-packing spree: It’s only the beginning,” https://www.salon.com/2017/12/03/gops-court-
packing-spree-its-only-the-beginning/; RP]

If the proposal passed, he notes, once Democrats again had unified control of the White House and Senate,
“they’d enact a bill expanding the lower courts by whatever amount was necessary to swing control right
back,” and possibly to expand the size of the Supreme Court as well, to counteract the theft of Garland’s seat. “With the
Calabresi-Hirji experience behind them, it would be remarkable for the Democrats in the next round not to go all the
way.”
 IL -- AT: Climate
Trump has packed the ninth circuit---they’ll make warming regulations impossible
Ben Feuer 19, 2-28-2019, chairman of the California Appellate Law Group LLP and a former clerk for the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, "Perspective," Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/28/thanks-trump-liberal-ninth-circuit-is-no-longer-
liberal/

President Trump and conservative commentators routinely mock the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as intolerably
liberal: It’s the “Ninth Circus” to Rush Limbaugh, the “Nutty Ninth” to former NRATV commentator Dan Bongino, “a complete & total
disaster,” according to the president. For the political right, it’s an institution loathed for once finding that the words “under God” meant
mandatory public-school recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance runs afoul of the First Amendment; for once engaging in an all-night battle with
the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of an execution; and for thrice enjoining the Trump administration’s infamous travel ban. The 9th
Circuit is so notorious among congressional Republicans that as recently as the last Congress, they held hearings to consider splitting up the
circuit geographically, on the premise its rulings, which once applied to a reported 4 percent of the country, now cover 20 percent of Americans
— too much liberal influence, perhaps.

But that’s about to change. Once the president’s current 9th Circuit nominees are confirmed, there will
be 12 GOP appointees among the court’s 29 full-time judges with one vacancy left for the president to
fill. Almost half of the bench will lean right. Thanks to Trump, the liberal 9th Circuit will be liberal no
more.

The president has conservative nominees slated to fill four out of five vacancies : Daniel P. Collins, who,
according to Climate Liability News, “has defended the oil industry in high-profile climate and environmental
cases,” and who clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; Daniel A. Bress, who also clerked for Scalia
and, at 39, would likely serve on the federal appellate bench for decades; Kenneth Lee, who worked in President
George W. Bush’s White House and has written articles criticizing affirmative action programs; and Bridget Bade, a federal
magistrate judge who clerked for conservative Judge Edith Jones of the 5th Circuit .

If they’re ultimately confirmed, thesefour will join three recent Trump appointees already on the 9th Circuit
with conservative bona fides: Ryan D. Nelson, who served on the staff of former senator and Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions;
Mark Bennett, a onetime Republican attorney general of Hawaii; and Eric Miller, who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, was
opposed by liberal-leaning Native American advocacy organizations and was confirmed earlier this week over
the objections of both of his Democratic home-state senators.

These new judges follow several 9th Circuit judges who were among the most liberal ever to sit on a
federal court, including the late Stephen Reinhardt, the “liberal lion” who authored the opinion tossing California’s ban on same-sex
marriage; and the late Harry Pregerson, arguably even more liberal than Reinhardt, who in his 1979 confirmation hearing told the Senate that
“if I had to follow my conscience or the law, I would follow my conscience.” They’re also filling vacancies left by unpredictable, libertarian-
leaning conservative Judge Alex Kozinski, who retired in 2017 facing sexual harassment allegations, and the late John Noonan, a tough-to-label
moderate whose decisions often leaned on Catholic moral teaching.

Warming doesn’t cause extinction.

Farquhar et al. 17 Sebastian Farquhar, DPhil student at Oxford specializing in Cyber Security and AI.
John Halstead, doctorate in political philosophy. Owen Cotton-Barratt, DPhil in pure mathematics. Stefan
Schubert, Oxford's department of experimental psychology. Haydn Belfield, degree in Philosophy,
Politics and Economics from Oriel College. Andrew Snyder-Beattie, Director of Research at the Future of
Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, MS in biomathematics. [Existential Risk: Diplomacy and
Governance, Global Priorities Project 2017]//BPS
The most likely levels of global warming are very unlikely to cause human extinction.15 The existential risks
of climate change instead stem from tail risk climate change – the low probability of extreme levels of
warming – and interaction with other sources of risk. It is impossible to say with confidence at what point global
warming would become severe enough to pose an existential threat. Research has suggested that warming of 11-12°C
would render most of the planet uninhabitable,16 and would completely devastate agriculture.17 This would pose an extreme threat to human
civilisation as we know it.18 Warming of around 7°C or more could potentially produce conflict and instability on such a scale that the indirect
effects could be an existential risk, although it is extremely uncertain how likely such scenarios are.19 Moreover, the
timescales over
which such changes might happen could mean that humanity is able to adapt enough to avoid extinction in even
very extreme scenarios.

Err against extinction – climate psychology biases in favor of catastrophe.

Cass 17 Oren Cass, Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, J.D. from Harvard University. [The Problem
with Climate Catastrophizing, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-03-21/problem-climate-
catastrophizing?cid=int-lea&pgtype=hpg]//BPS

And yet, such catastrophizing

is not justified by the science or economics of climate change. The well-established
scientific consensus that human activity is causing the climate to change does not extend to judgments about severity. The
most comprehensive and often-cited efforts to synthesize the disparate range of projections—for instance, the United Nations’
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Obama administration’s estimate of the “Social Cost of Carbon”—
consistently project real but manageable costs over the century to come. To be sure, more speculative worst-case
scenarios abound. But humanity has no shortage of worst cases about which people succeed in remaining far
calmer: from a global pandemic to financial collapse to any number of military crises. What, then, explains the prevalence of climate
catastrophism? One might think that the burgeoning field of climate psychology would offer answers. But it is itself a bastion of
catastrophism, aiming to explain and then reform the views of anyone who fails to grasp the situation’s desperate severity. The
Washington Post offers “the 7 psychological reasons that are stopping us from acting on climate change.” Columbia University’s Center for
Research on Environmental Decisions introduces its guide to “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication” by posing the question: “Why
Aren’t People More Concerned About Climate Change?” In its 100-page report, the American Psychological Association notes that “emotional
reactions to climate change risks are likely to be conflicted and muted,” before considering the “psychological reasons people do not respond
more strongly to the risks of climate change.” The document does not address the possibility of overreaction. Properly confronting
catastrophism is not just a matter of alleviating the real suffering of many well-meaning individuals. First and foremost, catastrophism
influences public policy. Politicians regularly anoint climate change the world’s most important problem and increasingly describe the necessary
response in terms of a mobilization not seen since the last world war. During her presidential campaign, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton
promised a “climate map room” akin to Roosevelt’s command center for the global fight against fascism. Rational assessment of cost and
benefit falls by the wayside, leading to questions like the one de Blasio posed in Rome: “How do we justify holding back on any effort that may
meaningfully improve the trajectory of climate change?” Catastrophism can also lead to the trampling of democratic norms. It has produced
calls for the investigation and prosecution of dissenters and disregard for constitutional limitations on government power. In The Atlantic, for
example, Peter Beinart offered climate change as his first justification for an Electoral College override of the election of Donald Trump as U.S.
president. The Supreme Court has taken the unprecedented step of halting implementation of the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s signature climate
policy, before a lower court even finished considering its constitutionality; his law-school mentor, professor Larry Tribe, likened the “power
grab” of his star pupil’s plan to “burning the Constitution.” The alternative to catastrophism is not complacency but pragmatism.
Catastrophists typically condemn fracked natural gas because, although it results in much lower greenhouse-gas emissions than coal, it does
not move the world toward the zero-emissions future necessary to avert climate change entirely. Yet fracking has done more in recent years to
reduce carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States than all renewable energy investments combined. It has boosted U.S. economic growth as
well. The idea that humanity might prepare for and cope with climate change through adaptationis incompatible with
catastrophists’ outlook. Yet if the damage from climate damage can be managed, anticipating challenges through
research and then investing in smart responses offers a more sensible path than blocking the construction of pipelines or
subsidizing the construction of wind turbines. Catastrophists countenance progress only if it can be fueled without
carbon-dioxide emissions. Yet given the choice, bringing electricity to those who need it better insulates them from any climate threat
than does preventing the accompanying emissions. The cognitive fault lines separating catastrophists from others cause both
sides to reach radically different conclusions from the same information. Catastrophists assume that their
interpretation is correct, and so describe other thinking as distorted. But if the catastrophists have it wrong, perhaps the distortions
are theirs.