homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:55 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:27 am
Posts: 103
Home Schooled: Yes
Basically, the Social Security Court is really backlogged. Therefore, the affirmative team hires a large number of Senior Attorney Adjudicators to help give "On The Record decisions." The plan was tried from 1995-2000 and was very effective.

A really good team is running it in our region. Do you guys have any ideas on how to beat it?

_________________
Alec Light

2010-11 |R8| Light/Light
2011-12 |R8| Folkert/Light
2012-13 |R8| Folkert/Light
2013-14 |R8| Folkert/Light
2014-15 |R8| Childs/Light
2015-16 |R8| Light/Toman


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:14 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1375
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Why did they end the program after 5 years if it was so awesome?

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Alec The Thinker wrote:
Basically, the Social Security Court is really backlogged. Therefore, the affirmative team hires a large number of Senior Attorney Adjudicators to help give "On The Record decisions." The plan was tried from 1995-2000 and was very effective.

A really good team is running it in our region. Do you guys have any ideas on how to beat it?

Topicalllittteeeeee.

Define "federal court system" as the judicial branch. Aff case isn't topical because SAAs/SSA courts are components of administrative law operating in the executive branch. They never touch the judicial branch unless a case is appealed to a district court.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:27 am
Posts: 103
Home Schooled: Yes
Evan wrote:
Why did they end the program after 5 years if it was so awesome?


They thought that the SAAs were not making educated decisions. But, the Affirmative team has all of this evidence saying that that decision was terrible.

_________________
Alec Light

2010-11 |R8| Light/Light
2011-12 |R8| Folkert/Light
2012-13 |R8| Folkert/Light
2013-14 |R8| Folkert/Light
2014-15 |R8| Childs/Light
2015-16 |R8| Light/Toman


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:27 am
Posts: 103
Home Schooled: Yes
Sharkfin wrote:
Alec The Thinker wrote:
Basically, the Social Security Court is really backlogged. Therefore, the affirmative team hires a large number of Senior Attorney Adjudicators to help give "On The Record decisions." The plan was tried from 1995-2000 and was very effective.

A really good team is running it in our region. Do you guys have any ideas on how to beat it?

Topicalllittteeeeee.

Define "federal court system" as the judicial branch. Aff case isn't topical because SAAs/SSA courts are components of administrative law operating in the executive branch. They never touch the judicial branch unless a case is appealed to a district court.



I mean, you could do that rather persuasively... However, the AFF will simply reject your Interp. They'll say that no where in the resolution does it say the Judicial Branch. Then, they'll bring up all of the "FCS" definitions....that include specialized courts.

_________________
Alec Light

2010-11 |R8| Light/Light
2011-12 |R8| Folkert/Light
2012-13 |R8| Folkert/Light
2013-14 |R8| Folkert/Light
2014-15 |R8| Childs/Light
2015-16 |R8| Light/Toman


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 3:44 pm
Posts: 6
Home Schooled: Yes
Alec The Thinker wrote:
Evan wrote:
Why did they end the program after 5 years if it was so awesome?


They thought that the SAAs were not making educated decisions. But, the Affirmative team has all of this evidence saying that that decision was terrible.

Not exactly... the ended the program in 2000 because it successfully dealt with the backlog and brought it down to a manageable level. Therefore the Administration didn't perceive a need for the program any longer. And guess what happened after that decision... backlog came back.

_________________
Caleb Canna - Verdict FL

Canna/Martin | RVIII | '13-'17


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Alec The Thinker wrote:
Sharkfin wrote:
Alec The Thinker wrote:
Basically, the Social Security Court is really backlogged. Therefore, the affirmative team hires a large number of Senior Attorney Adjudicators to help give "On The Record decisions." The plan was tried from 1995-2000 and was very effective.

A really good team is running it in our region. Do you guys have any ideas on how to beat it?

Topicalllittteeeeee.

Define "federal court system" as the judicial branch. Aff case isn't topical because SAAs/SSA courts are components of administrative law operating in the executive branch. They never touch the judicial branch unless a case is appealed to a district court.


I mean, you could do that rather persuasively... However, the AFF will simply reject your Interp. They'll say that no where in the resolution does it say the Judicial Branch. Then, they'll bring up all of the "FCS" definitions....that include specialized courts.

As they should. Which is why you argue that the judge should accept your definition, using any one of a number of reasonable standards. Common man, fairness (does anyone even know how many administrative law courts there are nationwide? Nearly every agency has one.), definition > no definition (iff Aff doesn't bring up definition in 1AC).

I could also see a counterplan to abolish admin law courts and port the resources to defined courts under the district courts instead of under the agency. Admin law is the subject of some controversy--it's not hard to find constitutional arguments against its prevalence (separation of powers, agencies deciding how to interpret their controlling statutes, etc.)

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
C-guy wrote:
Not exactly... the ended the program in 2000 because it successfully dealt with the backlog and brought it down to a manageable level. Therefore the Administration didn't perceive a need for the program any longer. And guess what happened after that decision... backlog came back.

Didn't the program get re-introduced in 2007 and renewed twice through 2013?

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:27 am
Posts: 103
Home Schooled: Yes
Voice of Reason wrote:
C-guy wrote:
Not exactly... the ended the program in 2000 because it successfully dealt with the backlog and brought it down to a manageable level. Therefore the Administration didn't perceive a need for the program any longer. And guess what happened after that decision... backlog came back.

Didn't the program get re-introduced in 2007 and renewed twice through 2013?



The 2007 and 2013 versions are ineffective and not good enough.

_________________
Alec Light

2010-11 |R8| Light/Light
2011-12 |R8| Folkert/Light
2012-13 |R8| Folkert/Light
2013-14 |R8| Folkert/Light
2014-15 |R8| Childs/Light
2015-16 |R8| Light/Toman


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Alec The Thinker wrote:
The 2007 and 2013 versions are ineffective and not good enough.

Ok. They were discontinued, correct? Any idea why? (What makes them substantially different from Aff here?)

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
I agree with Sharkfin on this one. This case is just simply not topical. You can literally beat any case that uses executive Article II courts (such as immigration court reform, MJIA, etc.) with suicide T. Check out my trading thread if you want a brief on how article 2 courts are not the federal court system. There literally isn't a single expert I can find that says they are.

Quote:
I mean, you could do that rather persuasively... However, the AFF will simply reject your Interp. They'll say that no where in the resolution does it say the Judicial Branch. Then, they'll bring up all of the "FCS" definitions....that include specialized courts.

Yeah, but this disregards the US Courts definition and the DOJ definition of "federal court system." Both say that it is solely article 1 and article 3 courts. Also, I'm sure you can really easily find someone saying that SSA courts specifically are not the federal court system. Just look it up.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Cyberknight wrote:
I agree with Sharkfin on this one. This case is just simply not topical. You can literally beat any case that uses executive Article II courts (such as immigration court reform, MJIA, etc.) with suicide T. Check out my trading thread if you want a brief on how article 2 courts are not the federal court system. There literally isn't a single expert I can find that says they are.

Quote:
I mean, you could do that rather persuasively... However, the AFF will simply reject your Interp. They'll say that no where in the resolution does it say the Judicial Branch. Then, they'll bring up all of the "FCS" definitions....that include specialized courts.

Yeah, but this disregards the US Courts definition and the DOJ definition of "federal court system." Both say that it is solely article 1 and article 3 courts. Also, I'm sure you can really easily find someone saying that SSA courts specifically are not the federal court system. Just look it up.

From a Topicality standpoint, would you consider magistrate judges (appointed by district courts) or bankruptcy judges (also appointed by other judges) to be topical?

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
From a Topicality standpoint, would you consider magistrate judges (appointed by district courts) or bankruptcy judges (also appointed by other judges) to be topical?

Certainly. The DOJ definition includes bankruptcy courts and magistrates (https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts). Both are part of the judicial branch, and thus fit basically any definition.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 158
Home Schooled: Yes
Cyberknight wrote:
Certainly. The DOJ definition includes bankruptcy courts and magistrates (https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts). Both are part of the judicial branch, and thus fit basically any definition.

It does? The DoJ definition - the way Neg teams quote it, at least - only lists Article III courts, and bankruptcy courts are Article I courts. And Wikipedia says administrative courts are also established under Article I, which means that if the definition includes bankruptcy courts it should also include the rest of Article I courts (eg Tax Court, immigration tribunals, DC Court of Appeals).


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
It does? The DoJ definition - the way Neg teams quote it, at least - only lists Article III courts, and bankruptcy courts are Article I courts. And Wikipedia says administrative courts are also established under Article I, which means that if the definition includes bankruptcy courts it should also include the rest of Article I courts (eg Tax Court, immigration tribunals, DC Court of Appeals).

If you look further down in the definition, it does include bankruptcy courts. But it doesn't include immigration courts, or military tribunals, or SSA ALJs.

As for the whole Article I thing, it's possible to set up a court using Article I, but still have it be considered an Article II court. I know this is confusing, but it's the truth. Technically, all executive agencies are set up under Article I of the Constitution, but the courts established under the executive are still considered "Article II courts" because they are not part of the judicial branch. They weren't set up using the "power to establish lesser courts" granted in the enumerated powers. If Congress established them, it did so under the necessary and proper clause as part of the executive (at least, I think this is the case).

The main point is that it has to be under the judiciary to be considered the federal court system. Otherwise, there are no good places to draw the line. Should we consider, say, the FEC part of the federal court system?

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Cyberknight wrote:
As for the whole Article I thing, it's possible to set up a court using Article I, but still have it be considered an Article II court. I know this is confusing, but it's the truth.

Didn't Stern v. Marshall find that bankruptcy courts couldn't exercise certain authority reserved for Article III courts? I'm not sure in what sense a bankruptcy court would be considered an Article III court if they're not established pursuant to that authority, nor allowed to exercise powers reserved for Article III courts.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
Didn't Stern v. Marshall find that bankruptcy courts couldn't exercise certain authority reserved for Article III courts? I'm not sure in what sense a bankruptcy court would be considered an Article III court if they're not established pursuant to that authority, nor allowed to exercise powers reserved for Article III courts.

Bankruptcy courts are not Article III, they're Article I. But they're still the Federal Court System, according to the DOJ definition. The ones that aren't part of the Federal Court System are the Article II courts, which are part of the executive.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 158
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
Bankruptcy courts are not Article III, they're Article I. But they're still the Federal Court System, according to the DOJ definition. The ones that aren't part of the Federal Court System are the Article II courts, which are part of the executive.

I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing... what do you define as Article II courts? A quick Google search tells me that "Article II court" is an uncommon term that occasionally is used to refer to military courts and the United States Court for Berlin. All the other non-article III courts, like the SSA administrative courts, are Article I.

EDIT: Article from the Heritage foundation which is basically the only thing on Article II courts from a reputable source I could find. It doesn't mention SSA judges, but it does say Article II courts are military court martials.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Cyberknight wrote:
Quote:
Didn't Stern v. Marshall find that bankruptcy courts couldn't exercise certain authority reserved for Article III courts? I'm not sure in what sense a bankruptcy court would be considered an Article III court if they're not established pursuant to that authority, nor allowed to exercise powers reserved for Article III courts.

Bankruptcy courts are not Article III, they're Article I. But they're still the Federal Court System, according to the DOJ definition. The ones that aren't part of the Federal Court System are the Article II courts, which are part of the executive.

Right, it seemed like you were saying bankrupcty courts were article II or III.

Two questions:
1. Why should we consider article I courts topical and not article II? It seems like you're just basing this on the DOJ definition, which doesn't mention article I/II/III courts at all-it just gives examples.

2. Aren't you undermining T on the SAA program by saying article I courts are topical? ALJ is typically considered article I, though I don't know about SSA courts specifically.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing... what do you define as Article II courts? A quick Google search tells me that "Article II court" is an uncommon term that occasionally is used to refer to military courts and the United States Court for Berlin. All the other non-article III courts, like the SSA administrative courts, are Article I.

EDIT: Article from the Heritage foundation which is basically the only thing on Article II courts from a reputable source I could find. It doesn't mention SSA judges, but it does say Article II courts are military court martials.

Fair enough, I guess "Article II courts" was a bad term to use. :P Call them what you like, the point is they are not Article I or Article III courts. That's why there's a case to "establish an Article I immigration court." The current immigration courts clearly are not Article I courts already, or this case would not exist (and they obviously aren't Article III courts either). :P

I don't know why they are categorized the way they are, but the only courts considered "Article I courts" are bankruptcy/tax/territory/federal claims courts and military/veterans appeals courts, and the only courts considered "Article III courts" are district, appeals, and supreme courts. Courts that are part of the executive are never referred to as Article I courts or Article III courts by any reputable sources, as far as I know. This is most likely because, as I previously mentioned, they were not set up in the inferior courts clause. They were set up as administrative agencies udner the Necessary and Proper clause.

Quote:
1. Why should we consider article I courts topical and not article II? It seems like you're just basing this on the DOJ definition, which doesn't mention article I/II/III courts at all-it just gives examples.

First of all, I'm not just basing this on the DOJ. I'm basing this on literally every single definition that I've found (besides Findlaw's, which isn't particularly credible). Cornell's specifically says only I and III are included. The others (including the US courts' website one) list out every single federal court out there, including SCOTUS, circuit courts, district courts, tax courts, bankruptcy courts, veteran appeals court, military appeals court, trade courts, and federal claims courts. Not a single one of them mentions immigration courts, ALJs, or military tribunals.

Quote:
2. Aren't you undermining T on the SAA program by saying article I courts are topical? ALJ is typically considered article I, though I don't know about SSA courts specifically.

You're right, I just found that out yesterday. :P ALJs are actually in a special category. They are Article I judges. However, they are still working for the executive branch, not a federal court. In fact, the SSA website indicates in multiple places that they are separate from the federal court system.

EDIT: What exactly does this plan change? There's no such thing as an "SSA court" as far as I can tell. There are ALJs, which are judges, but not really courts as far as I can tell. Then there are various appeals courts within the SSA. Which does the Aff change?

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited