You are on page 1of 15


A2 LOPEZ CP __/__


Judicial Taxation Disad
- 2AC Shell……………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
- 1AR overview …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
- extension – turns federalism NB………………………………………………………………… 4
- a2 no federal authority to raise state taxes………………………………………………………. 5

Business Confidence Disad (with Court Clog)

- 2AC Shell………………………………………………………………………………………... 6-7
- 1AR extensions………………………………………………………………………………….. 8-9

CP Links to Bush Good 2AC…………………………………………………………………….. 10

- 1AR extension….……………………………………………………………………..…………. 11
- a2 GOP hates state rights……………………………………………………………………..….. 12

CP Links to Bush Bad 2AC……………………………………………………………………… 13

- 1AR extension…………………………………………………………………………………… 14

The Business Confidence disad only applies if they read “narrow ruling” in the CP text to avoid
spillover offense – and only for regulations affs.

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Judicial Taxation Disad 2AC Shell

A. Normal means for the CP enforcement is for the Court to mandate the state raise local taxes
La Pierre 93. (D. Bruce, Prof of Law @ Washington U, Special Master in St. Louis school desegregation
case, “Enforcement of Judgments Against States and Local Governments: Judicial Control over the Power
to Tax”, George Washington Law Review, 61 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 301, January, lexis)
Notwithstanding this interference with state and local government and with the electorate's power to make basic
political decisions about taxes, courts correctly have claimed a measure of control over the power to tax as a means
of enforcing their judgments. In the absence of voluntary compliance, judicially ordered taxes are in fact the
traditional means of executing a judgment against local governments. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus is
available to compel local officials to exercise their state law authority to levy and collect taxes to satisfy a judgment.
17 Thus, the tax increase orders in the two Missouri school desegregation cases would not raise any significant legal
issue if the taxes were within the state law authority of local officials to levy taxes. There would be no significant
legal issue even though local officials would be forced to exercise state law authority that they would not otherwise
have exercised and even though a tax that would not otherwise be laid would be levied and collected.

B. Judicial taxation violates the principles of federalism – turns back the net benefit
Wolohojian 89. (G.R., partner @ Litigation Dept. of WilmerHale, Associate Independent Counsel for
Whitewater, “Judicial Taxation in Desegregation Cases”, Columbia Law Review, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 332,
March, lexis)
[*341] 2. Federalism Concerns and Taxation. -- Judicial taxation compromises federalism concerns by invading the
traditional state sovereignty over taxation. 74 In addition, by ordering state and local officials to exceed their
statutory authority, judicial taxation also invades the state legislature's authority over the state executive branch. The
tenth and eleventh amendments require a delicate accommodation of the federal courts' powers over a state's fiscal
schemes. On the one hand, while state taxation has traditionally been an area in which courts have deferred to state
legislatures, 75 there are limits on the deference that courts accord state fiscal policies. First, a federal court can
clearly invalidate a tax scheme that violates the fourteenth amendment, although the standard of proof for plaintiffs
seeking to strike down such a statute is extremely high. 76 Second, the Supreme Court has held that neither the tenth
nor the eleventh amendment shields state violations of the fourteenth amendment. 77 On the other hand, it will be
difficult to show that state fiscal schemes violate the fourteenth amendment 78 since "the States have the attribute of
sovereign powers in devising their fiscal systems to ensure revenue and foster their local interests." 79 Thus, in the
field of equal protection, the Supreme Court has held that unless a state fiscal scheme is "palpably arbitrary" 80 or
"hostile and oppressive . . . against particular persons and classes," 81 it cannot be invalidated by a federal court.
Furthermore, the Court has found that judicial interference with state fiscal schemes would have the "great[est] . . .
impact on our federal system." 82 An attempt by a federal court to "mandate a particular method or structure
of state or local financing" 83 would abrogate the principles of federalism.

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Judicial Taxation 1AR Overview (1/2)

1. They have no defense to our Wolohojian ev that judicial taxation would gut federalism. We have
a better internal link than the 1NC.

2. And, we’ll isolate an independent impact scenario – Judicial taxation policies slay the separation
of powers
Wolohojian 89. (G.R., partner @ Litigation Dept. of WilmerHale, Associate Independent Counsel for
Whitewater, “Judicial Taxation in Desegregation Cases”, Columbia Law Review, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 332,
March, lexis)
3. Separation of Powers Concerns. -- Apart from the tension engendered by federalism concerns, there are separation of powers considerations that caution
against unfettered judicial tampering with state fiscal schemes. As noted above, taxation has traditionally been the [*342]
province of the legislature. This stems at least in part from the historical position that there be no taxation without representation. Although courts continue to acknowledge
this as a compelling reason for placing the taxation power with the legislature, 84 they also stress their structural inability to make informed decisions
about taxation 85 and the availability of many constitutionally acceptable taxing arrangements. 86 In addition, the judiciary is not subject to the
political accountability that is commonly held to justify the legislature's ability to levy taxes.

3. SOP is critical to protect liberty and guard against tyranny

Redish and Cisar 91. (Louis, Professor of Law and Public Policy @ Northwestern U and Harriet Ancel,
Law Clerk to Chief Judge William Bauer, 41 Duke L.J. 449, lexis)
concentration of political power ultimately leads to the loss
In any event, the political history of which the Framers were aware tends to confirm that quite often
of liberty. Indeed, if we have begun to take the value of separation of powers for granted, we need only look to modern American history to remind
ourselves about both the general vulnerability of representative government, and the direct correlation between the concentration of political
power and the threat to individual liberty. n127 [*473] The widespread violations of individual rights that took place when President Lincoln assumed an inordinate
level of power, for example, are well documented. n128 Arguably as egregious were the threats to basic freedoms that arose during the Nixon administration, when the power of the executive
branch reached what are widely deemed to have been intolerable levels. n129 Although in neither instance did the executive's usurpations of power ultimately degenerate into complete and
it would
irreversible tyranny, the reason for that may well have been the resilience of our political traditions, among the most important of which is separation of powers itself. In any event,
be political folly to be overly smug about the security of either representative government or individual liberty.
Although it would be all but impossible to create an empirical proof to demonstrate that our constitutional tradition of separation of powers has been an
essential catalyst in the avoidance of tyranny, common sense should tell us that the simultaneous division of power and the
creation of interbranch checking play important roles toward that end.

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Judicial Taxation – Turns Federalism NB Ext

Your plan would levy taxes to fund desegregation – this guts federalism and the separation of
Wolohojian 89. (G.R., partner @ Litigation Dept. of WilmerHale, Associate Independent Counsel for
Whitewater, “Judicial Taxation in Desegregation Cases”, Columbia Law Review, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 332,
March, lexis)
In the thirty-four years since Brown v. Board of Education, 1 the questions in desegregation cases have changed as
the struggle to eliminate the vestiges of segregation continues. Recently, district courts have seen municipalities
otherwise willing to remedy the effects of segregation unable to do so because state statutes or constitutional
provisions prevent them from raising the funds necessary to implement desegregation remedies. Some federal courts
have determined in such cases that they may ignore state statutory restrictions on the municipalities' ability to levy
taxes and directly impose property taxes themselves. The judicial levying of taxes in desegregation cases implicates
questions of federalism, separation of powers, and the scope of the federal courts' equitable powers.

Judicial taxation jacks federalism and SOP

La Pierre 93. (D. Bruce, Prof of Law @ Washington U, Special Master in St. Louis school desegregation
case, “Enforcement of Judgments Against States and Local Governments: Judicial Control over the Power
to Tax”, George Washington Law Review, 61 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 301, January, lexis)
This power to impose burdens and raise money is the highest attribute of sovereignty, and is exercised, first, to raise
money for public purposes only; and, second, by the power of legislative authority only. It is a power that has not
been extended to the judiciary. Especially is it beyond the power of the Federal judiciary to assume the place of a
State in the exercise of this authority at once so delicate and so important. 421

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Judicial Taxation – a2 No Federal Authority to Raise Taxes

1. The Court can impose taxes to fund remedies despite contradicting state laws
Wolohojian 89. (G.R., partner @ Litigation Dept. of WilmerHale, Associate Independent Counsel for
Whitewater, “Judicial Taxation in Desegregation Cases”, Columbia Law Review, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 332,
March, lexis)
In the final group of cases, the Eighth Circuit has permitted direct judicial interference in neutral state fiscal policies
in order to carry out desegregation remedies. The court has found that the broad equitable powers of the federal
courts include the power to impose taxes directly, regardless of state constitutional or statutory limits.

2. Federal court authority means they can levy taxes regardless of state laws – this is normal means
La Pierre 93. (D. Bruce, Prof of Law @ Washington U, Special Master in St. Louis school desegregation
case, “Enforcement of Judgments Against States and Local Governments: Judicial Control over the Power
to Tax”, George Washington Law Review, 61 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 301, January, lexis)
In the absence of any politically determined rule of decision, federal courts, which have inherent power to enforce
their judgments, 644 must fill the gap and determine how, and to what extent, judgments against local governments
should be enforced. Given Congress' determination that the enforcement of federal court judgments is a question of
federal law, 645 the scope of federal courts' equitable powers to enforce constitutional judgments is undoubtedly a
question of federal law that requires the formulation of a federal rule of decision. 646 In fashioning a federal
common law rule of decision 647 for the enforcement of constitutional judgments against local governments, courts
can either adopt state law as the federal rule or formulate an independent federal common law rule. 648 Courts
usually fashion an independent federal rule for the vindication of federal constitutional rights. 649 Indeed, the
presumption of a federal constitutional common law rule fashioned independently of state law is so settled that the
Jenkins Court did not even pause to consider state law provisions for enforcement of judgments against local
governments in Missouri. The Court, instead, turned directly to its understanding of federal judicial power to compel
tax levies under the common law writ of mandamus. 650

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Business Confidence Disad 2AC** (1/2)

1. Narrow rulings gut business predictability and increase litigation

Masters and Waldmeir 1-11-07. (Brooke A., Senior Business Reporter, and Patti, US editor of FT,
“Corporate America discovers the limits of judicial sympathy”, Financial Times, pg. 13, lexis)
Andy Pincus, of the law firm Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, veteran of many Supreme Court business arguments, says narrow
leave a lot of uncertainty - and, given the high cost of US litigation, "uncertainty is a big negative for the
business community". The chief justice is committed to deciding cases in the narrowest way possible - even if
that fails to answer questions that may crop up in further litigation. At a speech in May, he said: "If it is not necessary to
decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more." In other words, he wants the court to decide as little as possible;
that may not be good news for US business. One recent 9-0 ruling is a case in point. In Ebay v MercExchange, decided last May, the issue
was when patent-holders should be allowed to obtain court injunctions to shut down a rival's business, if they can prove their patent has been
infringed. All nine justices agreed that courts should not issue injunctions automatically - but beyond that they agreed
on nothing. "Ebay v MercExchange doesn't say anything of significant use to the business community," says Seth Waxman,
former US solicitor-general, who argued the case on behalf of the patent- holder. Mark Levy, an expert on Supreme Court business cases at
Kilpatrick Stockton, defends the Ebay ruling: the central question before the court, he says, was whether injunctions should be automatic - and
the justices answered that question unequivocally. "That doesn't mean the court answered every question," he says. "But Ebay is an example of
what the court is doing well: deciding the issue before it in a way that clearly and definitively resolves (the central question), leaving lawyers and
judges to work out the next generation of legal issues that follow." But sometimes the court's down-the-middle jurisprudence can end up helping
business. In one recent case, Burlington Northern v White, the court issued what appeared to be an anti-business ruling, making it easier for
employees to sue when their employer punishes them for bringing a job discrimination case.

a) Business confidence is key to averting recession
Braithwaite 4
John, Australian Research Council Federation fellow, Australian National University, and is the chair of the Regulatory
Institutions Network, 592 Annals 79, Lexis
The challenge of designing institutions that simultaneously engender emancipation and hope is addressed within the assumption of economic
institutions that are fundamentally capitalist. This contemporary global context gives more force to the hope nexus because we know capitalism
thrives on hope. When business confidence collapses, capitalist economies head for recession. This dependence on
hope is of quite general import; business leaders must have hope for the future before they will build new factories;
consumers need confidence before they will buy what the factories make; investors need confidence before they
will buy shares in the company that builds the factory; bankers need confidence to lend money to build the factory;
scientists need confidence to innovate with new technologies in the hope that a capitalist will come along and market their
invention. Keynes's ([1936]1981) General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money lamented the theoretical neglect of "animal spirits" of
hope ("spontaneous optimism rather than . . . mathematical expectation" (p. 161) in the discipline of economics, a neglect that continues to this
day (see also Barbalet 1993).

b) Independently, frivolous lawsuits jack the economy

Cheney 03. (Dick, yeah that Dick, September 15,
We've achieved a great deal in these two-and-a-half years, but there's much left to do in Washington and around the world. We need to enact
Project BioShield to help protect America against the threat of attacks with biological weapons. We need legal reform because the
strength of our economy is undermined by frivolous lawsuits. And while there are encouraging signs the economy is picking
up steam, the President and I will not rest until everyone who wants a job can find a job. (Applause.)

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Business Confidence Disad 2AC** (2/2)

b) Economic contraction would cause collapse, mass starvation, totalitarianism, and nuclear war
Nyquist 05. (J.R, expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily contributing
editor, “The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash,” February 4,
Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President Bush, the American people
will likely support politicians who advocate further restrictions and controls on our market economy – guaranteeing its
strangulation and the steady pauperization of the country. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmas
listed above. It is easy to see, therefore, that the coming economic contraction, due in part to a policy of massive credit expansion, will have
serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the Democrats). Furthermore, an economic contraction will
encourage the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away from the free market system. The danger here is
not merely economic. The political left openly favors the collapse of America’s strategic position abroad. The withdrawal of the United
States from the Middle East, the Far East and Europe would catastrophically impact an international system that presently
allows 6 billion people to live on the earth’s surface in relative peace. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market and
trading system that evolved under American leadership, the planet’s economy would contract and untold millions would die of
starvation. Nationalistic totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of blame, would once again bring war to Asia and Europe. But this
time the war would be waged with mass destruction weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the center
of global capitalism. Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party gains power in Washington, we can expect to see policies of appeasement and
unilateral disarmament enacted. American appeasement and disarmament, in this context, would be an admission of guilt before the court of
world opinion. Russia and China, above all, would exploit this admission to justify aggressive wars, invasions and mass
destruction attacks. A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs. But we cannot do this. As one observer
recently lamented, “We drank the poison and now we must die.”

Heavier caseloads clog the court which increases all forms of discrimination

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Biz Con Disad – 1AR Extensions (1/2)

1. Extend our 2ac ev – Masters evidence says narrow rulings “leave uncertainty” and increase
litigation costs. The more narrow the ruling, the worse.

2. Robert’s commitment to unanimity jacks business confidence and clarity**

Masters and Waldmeir 1-11-07. (Brooke A., Senior Business Reporter, and Patti, US editor of FT,
“Corporate America discovers the limits of judicial sympathy”, Financial Times, pg. 13, lexis)
In a land where lawsuits are one of the most important costs of doing business, the US Supreme Court can have a
big impact on profitability. For years, the court declined to hear many of the cases that most profoundly affected corporate America. But now it seems to
have developed a fascination with business cases, and that trend is expected to accelerate following the September 2005 appointment as chief
justice of John Roberts, who spent most of his career on corporate litigation. In the current court term, 44 per cent of the cases involve business - up
from 30 per cent in the previous two terms, according to Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a law firm expert in Supreme Court litigation. This week the court issued its first important business
It is poised to rule in cases involving intellectual property,
ruling of the year, making it easier for companies to challenge patents in US courts.
competition policy, global warming and "punitive damages", which are imposed to punish and deter wrongdoing rather than to compensate the victim.
But the experience of the past five years shows that more rulings by the Supreme Court do not necessarily mean
more clarity in the business world. Their impact is complicated by the rarefied institution's attempts to balance two
competing imperatives: as much unanimity as possible among the nine justices along with enough breadth in their opinions to cover a wide range of future legal
questions. Far too often, in other words, Supreme Court rulings create as much ambiguity as they resolve. For example, two
rulings in 2003 and 2004 that were hailed as important victories, concerning punitive damages and claims of overseas wrongdoing, have proved to be less
sweeping than originally hoped. Several others, particularly in the patent area, were so narrowly written that they ended up
confusing corporate America, leading to more costly litigation. On the other hand, cases initially dismissed as setbacks for business or
unremarkable because they did not change existing law have ended up handing corporate America important tools for reducing financial exposure. Consider the 2005 case, Dura Pharmaceuticals
v Broudo, which at first appeared far from revolutionary. The court ruled that investors suing companies for fraud must prove their losses were caused by the fraud and not by unrelated factors
such as a general market collapse. Since that was already the position of most lower courts, the ruling raised few eyebrows. But because it effectively caps the damages many investors can seek
in such suits, it turned out to have a big impact, according to Bob Guiffra, a partner with Sullivan & Cromwell. Recent arbitration awards stemming from the stock market bubble have been much
the top US court has disappointed. In three of the most important
smaller than they might have been as a result. In other cases, however,
business cases of recent years - involving patents, lawsuits by foreigners against US corporations, and "punitive damages" -
its rulings have produced at best mixed results for business. Corporate lawyers insist they do not expect every ruling to go their way but

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

say that theywant clarity . "I'd rather have a bad decision that's clear than an OK decision that's not," says Steve Bokat, general counsel of the US Chamber of Commerce. "Ninety per
cent of the time, if you get clarity in a decision with a definitive holding, you at least know what your obligations are, and even if you don't like the opinion you are much less likely to get in
Roberts "gets this", says Mr Bokat. "He understands the importance of clarity" and has worked to foster unanimity in the
trouble with litigation." Chief Justice
often fractured court. "On the other hand, in order to get that unanimity the decisions tend to be more narrow: it doesn't give
you much advice on what to do going forward," he says.

3. Regulatory predictability key to investor confidence

Press Association 93
11-16, Lexis
is the mother of confidence, and we want government to provide a steady, growing economic
environment in which we can develop our businesses with that confidence," the CBI conference in Harrogate was told yesterday
(Monday) by Clive Thompson, chairman of the SE Region and group chief executive of the Rentokil Group. He added: "We in the CBI are no longer on the outside
looking in - we're right on the inside. But being on the inside demands we express our views responsibly and completely. It is insufficient to put the business view in
isolation without thought or concern for the requirements of the other parts of the economy. "We cannot ignore the demands of health, education, social services and
transport on the public purse. Clearly, tax revenue directed towards business means less resources for other important requirements in the economy. Recognition
brings responsibility." He went on to advocate government focusing on creating an environment in which business could create success. "We
don't want
radical changes of policy and direction much loved by politicians. Peaks and troughs have done more to wipe out the
confidence so necessary for investment in research and development, speculative new projects, and investment in plant and machinery
than any misguided political dogma. "Businessmen invest in their businesses and take risks in new ventures if they believe they will be
working in a business friendly environment. Confidence is the key, and for those who have to invest in the future, predictability
is the mother of that confidence."

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Biz Con Disad – 1AR Extensions (2/2)

C. And, we must first reject racial and gender discrimination – silence is complicity

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

CP Links to Bush Good PTX 2AC

1. States do not have the authority to do foreign policy in the status quo – double bind. Either
a) the CP can’t solve because it isn’t within the states jurisdiction, or,
b) the Supreme Court would have to devolve authority to the states
[insert evidence]

2. And, the latter links to politics –

a) Business interests and Congress favor extending federal power – they oppose Court restrictions
on Congressional Power
National Review 00. (May 1, lexis)
The modern Supreme Court's federalism is encountering a lot of powerful enemies-and very few friends. Liberal
elites and constituencies are reflexively nationalist. Business interests favor a national arena, for a number of
economic reasons. Congressmen and senators of both parties cheerfully vote for further extensions of federal
authority, often near unanimously (witness the proliferation of federal crimes, which now include the
impersonation of a 4-H member). The only substantial force for federalism is the conservative movement-including,
prominently, the right-to-life constituency that is hoping for a favorable decision in Stenberg.

b) Adverse Rulings Embolden Congress and Media Against Bush

Greenwald 06. (Glenn, Civil Rights Lawyer and Author “How would a Patriot Act?”,
Additionally, court opinions historically have a political impact as well as legal effects. Despite the concerted,
destructive attacks on the credibility of the Supreme Court by the likes of Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, who
hate and wage war on any institution (such as the media) which dares to challenge the Powers of the President,
Americans still retain a respect for the Supreme Court as an important and credible institution. The Court's
proclamation that the President has been acting beyond his legal and constitutional authority strengthens that
argument as a political matter.
It is also likely to further galvanize those in Congress and the media who have been gradually taking a stand
against the Administration. A Supreme Court ruling that is this decisive, on an issue this significant, is virtually
never confined to the legal realm, but almost always has impact, often profound impact, in the political realm
as well.

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

CP Links to Bush Good PTX 1AR

Congress Hates Restrictions on its Powers – outweighs federalism concerns

Frickey, ’02 (Philip, Law Prof @ Berkeley, Yale LJ, 5/1)
On some issues, like those implicating separation of powers concerns, Congress (at least sometimes) may well have
the institutional incentives to moderate its handiwork in order to preserve the balance of powers. On other issues,
like those dealing with Congress's federalism-implicated powers, this investigation may reveal that Congress's
desire to do that which is politically popular is far stronger than its desire to self-police its powers under
either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. By observing Congress this way, the
Court can sort out whether Congress has the institutional incentives to take factfinding seriously.

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

Lopez Links to Bush Good PTX – a2 GOP Likes States Rights

Times Have Changed – GOP Base No Longer Supporters of States Rights

New Republic, 5/9/05
As a result, Republicans now support institutions they previously vilified: Whereas they once wanted to abolish the
federal Department of Education, now they want to wield it to advance their own agenda on educational standards
and morals (no wonder that, in four years, Bush has doubled--yes, doubled--its budget). They are willing to concern
themselves with aspects of human life that conservatives once believed should be free of all government
interference. In his 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush said, "I propose a $450 million initiative to bring mentors
to more than a million disadvantaged junior high students and children of prisoners. ... I propose a new $600 million
program to help an additional 300,000 Americans receive [drug] treatment over the next three years." And the
conservative movement, begun partially in resistance to federal intervention in what was regarded as the states'
spheres of influence, today has endorsed dramatic federal supremacy over state prerogatives. The No Child Left
Behind Act entailed a massive transfer of power from states to the federal government--not just a difference from
Reagan-era conservatism, but its opposite.

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

CP Links to Bush Bad PTX

1. States do not have the authority to do foreign policy in the status quo – double bind. Either
a) the CP can’t solve because it isn’t within the states jurisdiction, or,
b) the Supreme Court would have to devolve authority to the states
[insert evidence]

2. And, the latter links to politics –

a) GOP base would love the counterplan – states rights rulings cause them to mobilize in Congress
Rosen 06. (Jeff, Legal Affairs Editor @ New Republic and Author, “The Most Democratic Branch”,
August 25,
JR: Many thanks for the nice words and glad you liked the book. As for stare decisis: like most accounts of
constitutional history, I don't have a comprehensive theory of when judges should uphold precedents with which
they disagree. But I like former Judge Luttig's idea of "super stare decisis" -- namely, when a decision has been
repeatedly reaffirmed by justices appointed by presidents of different parties and confirmed by Senates controlled at
different times by Democrats and Republicans, it may be entitled to special respect and should not be lightly
overturned. This resonates with my concern about judicial unilateralism and allows judges to express respect for the
constitutional views of Congress and the President and ultimately the American people. There's room for debate
about how to apply the idea of "super stare decisis" when it comes to the Federalism cases; but generally, as you
suggest, I think judges should defer to Congress in the face of uncertainty. And I'm inclined to think that judicial
flyspecking of Congress's power is more of an agenda item for the Republican base than a constitutional principle
clearly embraced by a majority of the American people. For that reason, I wouldn't shed any tears if Morrison were
b) the GOP would credit Bush for the counterplan, since he appointed 2 of the 9 justices

3. Public loves the CP – they support court rulings that strike down federal laws in favor o giving
control to the states
Devins 04. (Neal, Prof Law and Gov @ William Mary, Law and Contemporary Problems, June 22, lexis)
TURN TO FEDERALISM. Societal forces are inevitably part of the mix of constitutional law. So long as judges "are relatively normal human beings," observed Chief Justice
William Rehnquist, they cannot "escape being influenced by public opinion...." (11) By reading the newspaper, talking with family members, and the like, Supreme Court Justices cannot escape
The Rehnquist Court is no exception. Its anti-Congress decisionmaking is in sync
"[t]he great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men." (12)
with public opinion. A. Public Distrust in the Federal Government
Public opinion polls reveal that U.S. citizens today distrust "the government in Washington," especially compared to the mid-sixties
when LBJ's Great Society was in full bloom. (13) In 1964, the American National Election Study asked "How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do
what is about right?" Atthat time, seventy-six percent of respondents answered "just about always" or "most of the time." (14) By 1995, the percentage dropped totwenty-three percent; in 2001, it
stood at twenty-seven percent. (15) Correspondingly, people in the U.S. think that members of Congress care more about making themselves look better than making the countrybetter (seventy-
four percent to seventeen percent). (16) They also think that "those we elect to Congress in Washington lose touch with the people pretty quickly" (eighty-two percent to sixteen percent), (17) and
think that Congress is captured by "big companies," "politicalparties," and the "news media" (ranging from seventy-nine percent toeighty-eight percent).
States and localities have not seen a sharp decline in trust during the same period.
B. Public Distrust in State and Local Government
When asked how they would feel "[i]f the federal government transferred responsibility for more government
programs to your state government," seventy seven percent of those polled in 1995were "very" or "somewhat confident"
that their state could do a better job managing those programs than the federal government. (18) Likewise, when it comes to fighting
crime, the public, by a 2 to 1 margin, has more trust and confidence in state and localities than in the federal
government. (19) In other words, "[d]isenchantment with the national government did not produce commensurate disenchantment at lower levels." (20)

A2 LOPEZ CP __/__

CP Links to Bush Bad PTX – Mo’ Ev

GOP Base Hates Federal Intrusions on States Rights

National Review, 6/16/03
The most compelling response is that the GOP stands for, and expects of its nominees, a commitment to democratic,
decentralized government -- and that judicial "activism" in pursuit of that constitutional principle is no vice. The
Democrats stand for unlimited national power. The pursuit of that ideology -- by judges or, for that matter, by
legislators -- is a vice. An approach to the Court that acknowledges this would refocus attention where it belongs,
and would be broadly consistent with the GOP's long-term interests and agenda. It would also yield an effective
response to the liberal-activism charge and make possible an accurate assessment of the Rehnquist Court's record.