Resolved: The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be term-limited.

Burden of proof

Pro

Because Pro is arguing for a radical departure from tradition and would require a constitutional amendment, Pro carries the majority of the Burden of Proof

Definitions

Term limits: The maximum number of terms a person can serve in an office
Supreme Court: The highest court in the United States
Justices: An individual judge.

The powers of the Supreme Court is vested in Article III of the United States Constitution: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Currently the only way to remove a Supreme Court justice once in office is through impeachment. In recent years, several deaths and controversial rulings called into question whether or not the current system is working.

Round 1

1 of 3

whiteflame Global Moderator

Pro #1

I look forward to this debate with you, SatanLucy! This is a topic I’ve been wanting to debate for a while, looking forwarded to seeing where this goes.

I’ll break this down into some setup for the debate before getting into my plan.

I. Framework

The focus of this debate is on judicial legitimacy. “Judicial legitimacy refers to the public’s acceptance of courts as rightful arbiters whose authority and decisions merit deference. This legitimacy rests on principles of impartiality, transparency and accountability, and it underpins the rule of law. Public perception of the judiciary is shaped by high-profile rulings, political contestation, media coverage and instances of judicial misconduct.” This is closely tied to the United States Supreme Court (SC)’s democratic legitimacy. How well a court adheres to those principles is established in large part by vesting in elected officials the power to appoint them. We cannot dissociate the nomination of new justices from the process of democratically electing presidents and senators, the latter of which was a foundational basis for passing the 17th Amendment.

Why does this matter?

The SC doesn’t have an army, nor can it pass legislation or budgets. That makes it inherently reliant on those bodies that can enforce its authority - the Executive and Legislative branches, as well as state and local governments - to do so, and those bodies reflect the will of the people. Justices need to be able to make decisions that, even if the American public broadly disagrees with them, will be complied with. Justices rely on that compliance, that compliance requires enforcement from other branches, and that enforcement comes from elected representatives who reflect the will of the people.

The SC needs judicial legitimacy to function. If I can establish that it has lost legitimacy and that term limits would help to restore that legitimacy, then I will have affirmed the resolution.

II. Background

The court has been plagued with scandals and trust deficiencies. A litany of undisclosed gifts, obvious conflicts of interest, and failures to recuse themselves from cases with said conflicts pervade the court. These have had a marked effect on trust in the court, with public confidence in the court at its lowest point in decades.

The very process by which justices are confirmed to their positions has become more partisan than ever before. Justice Roberts is the only sitting justice who received votes from a majority of senators on the other side of the political aisle from his nominating president. Additionally, the process of nominating and confirming a new justice has been drowned in dark money, engendering potential conflicts of interest and corruption.

While these are expansions on existing problems within the SC, recent changes to the nomination process create novel concerns. Vacancies have become opportunities for parties in power in the Senate to control when a seat is filled. Long-standing norms such as granting every nominee a hearing and a vote were tossed out with Merrick Garland in 2016, when the Senate effectively held an SC seat open for the next president to fill. This also places pressure on the justices “to time their retirement to permit a president of their political party to name the replacement,” paving the way for horse trading that allows justices to lobby for the person to fill their seat.

The result is a system that both entrenches existing biases on the court and only allows swings in ideology when unexpected vacancies happen by gaming the process for appointing a new justice. It has become increasingly common for presidents to appoint no new SC justices, and those that do often have an outsized and long-standing effect on the makeup of the court. This affects the bias of the SC, with 6 of the current 9 justices having been appointed by Republicans despite Democrats having won 5 of the previous 10 presidential elections.

III. Plan

As specified in the definitions, this would be a constitutional amendment. Note that, as with any “ought” resolution, we are concerning ourselves with the results of the change and not with the process of passing a constitutional amendment.

Justices will have 18 year terms. These will be staggered, with the aim of affording each president two appointees. Justices who finish their terms will be allowed to either retire or continue in the role of a “senior justice,” hearing cases by designation on the lower courts and stepping back onto the SC bench when there’s a recusal or an unexpected vacancy.

Current justices would effectively have this apply somewhat retroactively, with each justice reaching the end of their 18 year term in 2 year increments, i.e. Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving justice, would reach the end of his term in 2 years, followed by John Roberts in 4, etc. This is why terms would be 18 years, since that allows for 2 year increments across 9 justices.

The timing of these vacancies would be set such that they would coincide with the swearing in of new representatives post-presidential and midterm elections.

This yields several advantages.

IV. Will of the People

Recently, justices have served an average of 26 years, spanning over 6 presidential terms. With a declining age of appointment, justices are likely to serve longer in the future. This results in justices with very long and lasting imprints on court opinions. In direct contrast, the elected branches of government and therefore the people they represent have dwindling opportunities to shape the court, seeing half the number of new justices that someone would have just 60 years ago.

Under my model, no justice would serve more than 18 years on the bench, so efforts to expand the time a justice spends on the bench would be fruitless. Every new president nominating two new justices necessarily reflects the will of the people at that time, adding new dynamics and thinking to the makeup of the court.

V. Accountability

The Constitution sets a very high bar for impeachment, and while that preserves some independence of the court from political pressures, it also makes each justice almost entirely unaccountable for their decisions. This is particularly pressing when the court has made a regular habit of moving cases to the shadow docket. The resulting rulings don’t decide a case on the merits, but still carry immense stakes. This also reduces accountability, since these can often come without even a signed opinion, let alone reasoning.

Shorter terms would also reduce the stakes for each nomination. By making the interval between appointments consistent, elected officials nominating these justices have greater incentive to compromise and allow for public accountability, since otherwise their confirmation hearings would face greater impasses.

VI. Refreshing the SC

Political parties couldn’t use their majorities to grease the skids when it comes to getting justices in at opportune moments. Late-term vacancies, whether from death or retirement, would be filled by senior justices rather than a new confirmation. This ensures that the knowledge and experience of justices who finish out their term aren’t entirely lost to the court, while providing opportunities for fresh blood to pump through the arteriosclerotic blood vessels of the judicial system.

And that turnover is likely to improve judicial decision-making. Fresh voices would change the dynamics of the court, addressing issues that have become entrenched with existing leadership in an organization were scant few wield a lot of power. The current SC exhibits marked tension between members that has led to animosity and dissenting from the bench. Turnover creates opportunities to change these interpersonal dynamics for the better and increase the diversity of the court, which could inspire public confidence and produce a richer jurisprudence.

VII. Conclusion

The focus of this debate necessarily must be on what is best for a functioning, effective SC. My impacts all focus on engendering greater trust in the highest court. This is a court whose decisions have dramatically increased in importance over the years, with opportunities to place new justices becoming front and center in elections today. We need to recognize that the court is politicized and work to make the justices accountable for the resulting actions it takes. We need to reduce court polarization and make the SC a more effective and reflective body. Through turnover via term limits, the SC can achieve judicial legitimacy, recovering the trust it sorely needs among the people.

SatanLucy

Con #2

Happy to debate you Whiteflame. Good luck, have fun

Framework for debate should be upholding autonomy and freedoms in a democracy

Autonomy and freedoms are necessary for a democracy,

so we will treat maximizing them as best course of action.

Best way to defend autonomy is through competence and

independence from popular trends or corrupt politicians.

It is enough for opponent's framework to fail or

be unproved for his burden (to prove topic) to not be met.

1. Punishes competence

When term limit expires, there is no guarantee a better person will take that

person's place.

But when it comes to highly competent people, those are few of population, the chance

decreases further.

If some person does an excellent job, better than anyone else,

having a term limit would just mean person with inferior abilities takes the job.

2. Counter topic

While my opponent attacks the status quo, I dont have to defend it.

I can just give better solution than my opponent.

My opponent argues for term limits for all justices. So even

the highly competent ones would be thrown out with the bad ones.

I argue term limit only for less competent ones, ones which do an excellent job

should absolutely never have a term limit, because doing so

would only lower number of people doing an excellent job.

Senate can impeach a justice. I would just add that Senate also selects justices

who did a great job, and those dont get a term limit.

this creates incentive to perform better, and it can happen once every

5 years. It is better because it keeps the really competent ones doing their role,

while my opponent wants to discard both competent ones and not competent ones.

Just because person doesnt have term limit doesnt mean person is doing a bad job.

If person has unconditional term limit, person will be less interested to perform well

because their term limit expires regardless, performing great or just performing average.

3. Problem with term limits for all

Supreme Court justices are not elected by any popular vote.

They are nominated by the President and then confirmed by a majority vote in the U.S. Senate.

Senate maybe confirms, but it can only confirm what president nominates.

term limits for all actually gives president power

to take over more of Supreme Court, which is dangerous because Supreme Court is supposed

to limit president's power.

Supreme Court is the only thing upholding a constitution to prevent president from

abusing it, and to give president more power over Supreme Court essentially means

reducing balances of power.

4. Worrying about political consequences

If justices are term limited, it means justices worry more about their future,

future employment, and political consequences of just what happens when you step on

politician's toe. this makes them less focused on their actual job, and more focused

on worrying about self.

5. Experience accumulation vs newbies

Judge who serves for decades will have huge experience regarding constitutional law.

On the other hand, constantly switching judges means by truism that average level

of experience among judges decreases.

Experience is crucial in decision making.

Also, those who have a lot of experience already have a lot of memory

of past cases, and are able to judge better because they were there when those cases

were going on.

Someone who just appears now wont have direct experience in Supreme Court,

and as result, will have to go through learning curve. Problem here is that just when

person accumulates enough experience, term expires and experience is lost.

Experience is consistently shown to increase decision making ability in all areas of life,

so reducing experience of justices reduces their decision making ability as well.

Not everything needs to be term limited and popular.

6. "pick me"

Currently, president cannot ever realistically

control Supreme Court. With term limits tho, it means potential judges gotta line up

and say "pick me, I will serve your interests, president". It turns entire Supreme

Court into a political battleground, completely negating the role of Supreme Court

to keep president from behaving bad and to be independent from politics

7. Supreme Court protects minorities

Reason why Supreme Court isnt elected by popular vote like president,

and shouldnt be controlled by said president, is because Supreme Court upholds constitutional

rights even when majority wants to take them away.

Democracy is good, but democracy in which two wolves and sheep vote on whats for dinner?

Democracy isnt "majority determines everything".

Democracy says "majority gets the most say on a lot of issues,

but minority is still protected from abuse".

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship."

8. Impeachment is already enough

Supreme Court justices who behave bad can be impeached, because they are by constitution

required to be of "good behavior". It means there is already a way to remove bad ones and

keep highly experienced good ones. this is already better than what my opponent argues for.

Impeachment of bad ones and keeping of really good ones is much better than removing both

good and bad.

If this somehow isnt enough, term limits can be placed based on meritocracy.

If you are highly competent with a lot of experience and

history of good work, you shouldnt get term limit.

My opponent wants to place term limits on all, competent and incompetent.

I say that only incompetent ones should get that.

9. Supreme Court term limits are not constitutional

Changing the constitution in an attempt to gain control over Supreme Court makes

constitution itself pointless.

Why have constitution to limit power of politicians if politicians control the very

institution necessary to apply said constitution?

10. Supreme Court should not be under control of president or majority

Individual autonomy is upheld only if majority doesnt have power to violate

minority any time majority feels like it.

Democracy is not about popular will deciding everything, but about

upholding rights and freedoms of all people.

US constitution itself guarantees many freedoms to all, which cannot be taken away

by majority.

12. USA already had a series of bad leaders

P1. USA had a series of bad leaders (trump, Biden, trump - One literally insane, the other also)

P2. Giving bad leaders more power harms US interests

P3. Giving bad leaders more power over Supreme Court means giving leaders more power

C. Giving bad leaders more power over Supreme Court harms US interests

Bad leader shouldnt get power on how constitution is interpreted.

It would mean leader potentially even bypasses Congress.

13. Individual autonomy argument

Individual autonomy should be violated for arbitrary reasons = All autonomy

can in same manner justified to be violated for arbitrary reasons

Arbitrary reasons as justification can justify anything, even opposite things,

and thus they are not true justification of anything.

One is to uphold individual autonomy any time arbitrary reason attempts to take it away.

My opponent didnt define "should", thus I will.

"Should" is to be defined by protecting individual autonomy and freedoms against all

violations done for arbitrary reasons.

Individual autonomy is best upheld if Supreme Court remains more independent to keep

upholding it.

If Supreme Court isnt independent, it means individual autonomy is more exposed to

violation by arbitrary reasons of president or current trends of masses

More independent Supreme Court = Better upholds autonomy

Less independent Supreme Court = Worse at upholding of autonomy

Upholding autonomy = Logically necessary

More independent Supreme Court = Logically necessary

My opponent here must either argue that upholding autonomy is not necessary,

or that somehow more dependent Court better upholds autonomy.

Counters

1. His framework

Opponent didnt use deductive logic to conclude framework, making it uncertain and unproved.

Further, saying that Supreme Court requires compliance from public doesnt

really say anything about universal term limits, nor how term limits benefit public better

nor how lack of term limits makes public not compliant.

2. Backround

Saying that Supreme Court has had scandals is not really saying term limits reduce

scandals, any more than term limits reduced amount of scandals trump has.

Solution I propose would be to make it easier to remove bad judges, so that solves

the scandal issue with no need for term limits. term limits wouldnt immediately

solve scandals, but only when term expires.

3. Plan

My opponent isnt in position of power to enforce his "plan",

making it guaranteed that his plan wont happen exactly as he wants it.

Further, his plan makes it easier for presidents to control Supreme Court. If Rebulicans win 3 out of 4 elections, (get 6 judges),

republicans control Supreme Court.

Current system works in a way that a series of victories in elections doesnt

actually mean control over Supreme Court, maintaing power balance.

4. Will of people

If we were to enforce will of people, Supreme Court itself would be unnecessary.

We would do what majority wants. But that is not democracy. Democracy means

protecting rights and freedoms of all people, not just majority.

5. Accountability

We both agree that constitution should be changed, but while I argue for more accountability,

my opponent argues for term limits.

term limits dont mean accountability. If person is bad, why wait 18 years to

replace him? It reduces accountability as person nears term limit and loses interest

to be good.

6. Refreshing

My opponent wants to keep experienced judges and bring in new judges to replace them,

but one excludes the other.

My opponent says new judges would improve things, but from what does he draw

this conclusion? If he merely counts change as improvement, then my solution

is improvement by faster change.

Round 2

2 of 3

whiteflame Global Moderator

Pro #3

Thanks to Con!

I’ll start with the clashes on framework and the plan/CP debate.

Framework Comparison

I presented a framework for why judicial legitimacy (JL) is essential to ensure the SC functions. Con drops that reasoning, claiming it isn’t deductive. I’ll rewrite it as a syllogism:

P1: JL is necessary for courts to function because courts depend on other branches to enforce their decisions.

P2: JL depends on public acceptance, which is strengthened by democratic accountability.

P3: If the Supreme Court loses legitimacy, then its ability to secure compliance with its rulings is weakened.

C: Therefore, if term limits would restore JL, they should be adopted.

My framework shows that public compliance is necessary to achieve JL, which establishes my burden to show that term limits increase public acceptance. The rest of my case demonstrates that link.

Con doesn't try to link his case to my framework, instead presenting his own. He asserts that autonomy and freedom (both undefined) are important, claiming that these are necessary for democracy. He doesn’t weigh them against JL, nor why this specific autonomy/freedom loss is so devastating, and provides no means to measure competence or independence, making both criteria nebulous.

Plan Comparison

My plan is clear: a constitutional amendment will be passed, it will establish an 18 year term for SC justices and the “senior justice” role. It is not required that I personally enforce the plan to have that happen.

Con's case is as follows:

The Senate can impose a “term limit only for less competent” justices “once every 5 years”

That “term limit” would be 4 years (Con clarified this offline)

This isn’t so much a term limit as it is a different form of impeachment with a distinct threshold, time delay and cool down period. Con hasn’t explained how competency would be evaluated and he provides no enforcement mechanism for the term limit. Is this a constitutional amendment? A policy passed by Congress? Does it require a simple majority? Can it be a party line vote? Can it be overturned or appealed?

Two points of clarification:

Besides being entirely ineffectual (Con asserts solvency in #8), impeachment exists already and is therefore non-unique.
We agree that term limits are appropriate, we just disagree about their application and length. So, Con’s argument (#9) that term limits are “not constitutional” is non-unique.

Onto some rebuttal.

Con has 10 other points (#11 is missing). I’ll group them as appropriate.

I. “Brain Drain”

Con argues that my plan removes valuable voices from the SC, “punish[ing] competence” and rolling the dice with replacements (#1), and that more experience on the SC bench is better (#5).

Con asserts a term limit is “punishment” without explanation. A President is not “punished” with a four year term.
Con’s argument assumes that these highly competent people will be entirely lost to the court. Justices would remain as senior justices unless they choose to retire, so they will continue to collect a paycheck. For this reason, concerns about future employment or political consequences that Con mentions in #4 are irrelevant.
Con asserts value on the bench and lack thereof off the bench.

The current pool of justices showcase many strengths, but also a dearth of valuable experiences in public defense, trial-court judging, state court systems, corporate law, civil rights litigation and regulatory litigation on the court. And the longer they stay on the court, the more issues of cognitive aging may impair their reasoning, executive functioning and processing speed.

Meanwhile, there are 1,770 authorized judgeships across the federal court system, including other judges with lifetime appointments, magistrate and specialized judges, many with experience in constitutional law. Learning on the job is net positive, not something to be avoided, and even existing SC justices are constantly learning from new cases. An 18 year term is more than sufficient to acquire and employ the experience necessary to be an effective SC justice.

II. Checks and Balances

Con argues that my plan gives the President and Congress more power over the court (#3), requiring judges to lobby them for positions on the court (#6), giving bad and insane leaders power (#12) via majority rule to harm minority groups (#7 and #10).

The President and Congress already have power over the courts. The President chooses who to nominate and Congress chooses to confirm those nominations. Nominees, especially recent ones, have been required to show their support for the president’s agenda. The SC already is a political battlefield. Con doesn’t explain how term limits change this balance of power. There would be more turnover on average per administration, since the number of appointments on average would go from 1.3 to 2, but the resulting parity ensures every administration has an equal capacity to change the makeup of the court, whereas…
Presidents can and have taken over control of the court in single administrations. That doesn’t require 6 appointments: the first Trump administration dramatically shifted the ideology of the court from a balanced ideology to a conservative supermajority with 3. By contrast, the Biden administration had 1 nominee, meaning that the Trump administration had far more control over the current makeup of the SC than Biden as a combination of chance and political maneuvering. Variance, particularly the ability of Congress and the President to directly impact the number of appointees they get (again: see Merick Garland), is the problem.
The current trend for the SC is to diminish minority rights. Recent decisions have dismantled minority voting rights, ended affirmative action, and diminished transgender access to medical care, and that’s just written decisions. Con drops my points on the shadow docket, where the Trump administration have been given the go-ahead to use racial profiling for immigration stops, end Temporary Protected Status without cause for immigrants from Syria and Haiti, or upheld a ban on transgender people serving in the military. Even if he clarifies his competency standard, Con’s plan cannot resolve this, requiring 4 years to replace a single justice and 13 to replace two. My plan cycles two of the justices who sided with the majorities in these cases out within four years.
Con’s syllogism (see #12) is nothing but assertions. Con doesn’t establish that:

P1: Trump or Biden are bad leaders or insane

P2/3: Presidents would receive more power via my plan

C: This power harms US interests

I’ll admit that bad leaders exist and more are likely to be elected in the future, but Con gives no reason why my plan further empowers them. By contrast, his plan allows Presidents and the Senate to target and remove individual justices they disagree with, effectively rescinding appointments based on some nebulous view of their competency.

III. Importance of Autonomy

Con argues that the lost autonomy of SC justices would be arbitrary and render them less able to uphold autonomy broadly (#13) and tries to define "should."

SC term limits are not a violation of individual autonomy, any more than term limits for congressmen or presidents are. It does not affect their ability to make decisions of their own. Con asserts there is some unknown violation that results from rescinding a lifetime appointment, but he never clarifies what that is, nor does he explain how term limits make courts less independent.
SC term limits are not arbitrary. If anything, it is arbitrary to afford justices lifetime appointments when legislators and presidents have term limits. My case recognizes the negative impact of those lifetime appointments and responds accordingly. None of those reasons are arbitrary. By contrast, Con supports an arbitrary, unclear competency standard for imposing term limits on certain justices.
Con defines the term “should,” a word that does not appear in the resolution, by literally substituting his own framework for a definition (that’s not how definitions work). The resolution does include “ought," which I already defined.

Finally, some case defense.

II. Background

Con claims term limits wouldn’t reduce scandals, but drops that increased accountability resulting from a greater incentive to compromise and address impasses before they happen shed more light on scandals and improve the quality and transparency of SC selections going forward.

III. Plan

Con points out that the SC can be secured by a political party winning office multiple times.

That’s non-unique. Parties that win multiple elections get more chances to control the SC without term limits.
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. A majority party with staying power reflects the will of the people and should appoint more justices.
Con’s plan, like the status quo, allows for even bigger discrepancies than a 6-2 majority of picks. Ford, Reagan and H.W. Bush gave Republicans 6 new justices, while Carter gave Democrats 0.

IV. Will of the People

Con repeats his points about majority rule. Refer back to my framework where I establish the SC’s dependence on compliance and enforcement. Con claims this somehow makes the SC unnecessary, but I’ve established it is crucial for the court to function.

V. Accountability

Con claims the court is more accountable under his plan, but doesn’t warrant that assertion. His plan does nothing about political horse trading, strategic retirements, or Senators controlling when a seat is filled, nor does he address my arguments about compromise or transparency that result from my plan.

VI. Refreshing the SC

Con claims we can’t keep experienced judges and introduce new ones. Refer back to my plank about senior justices, these are not mutually exclusive. Con claims faster improvement, but his case dramatically restricts the number of removals that can happen to one every 13 years, functioning under the assumption that a single removal is sufficient to address problems with the whole SC.

SatanLucy

Con #4

thx Whiteflame!

Its honor to debate you, so I will try my best.

14. Uncertainty

term limits are harmful and this is known

term limits arent harmful and this is known

term limits arent harmful and this is not known

term limits are harmful and this is not known

Only 1 out of 4 justifies term limits. Unknown doesnt prove Pro's position.

term limits give more power to bad politicians, remove competent judges, delay removal of incompetent. In any case of a tie, what is harmful by default, loses.

Benefits are not a guarantee of happening, or way expected, while harms are. Unpredictable unknown harms could follow, thus Pro's case cannot

be proved with certainty. Pro needs measuring system showing benefits must happen, and outweigh known and unknown harms.

No guarantee that term limits will do good while harm is guaranteed, thus uncertainty.

16. Who decides

Popular vote or politician should not make this decision.

the point of SC is to be independent from popularity and politician.

If it were not so, we wouldnt need SC, just do what is popular or what

politician says.

17. interests

Majority dont usually know their interest they elect a politician, regret, it happens more often than not.

18. term limits = more influence

term limits mean president gets to select judges much more often, so it means

more political influence.

19. Benefits

Biggest benefit of SC is for it to be independent.

SC is one standing between minority and frenzied majority or frenzied politician or congress.

Its one thing providing a balance to power which is already not balanced enough,

so reducing balance by making Court

more dependent on a politician it is supposed to keep in check,

is a bad idea.

20. Now

Almost no president in US history has nominated

majority of SC in a single term. Its extremely rare that 5 of justices die in 4 years.

term limits could drastically change that. they increase replacement rate over time,

so president would be replacing the ones which die, retire and the ones with expired term.

It is enough to win 2 elections,

and already have 1 judges on your side in SC, to win majority in SC and then get control over it, without Senate.

21. Supreme Court defending rights against government

My opponent says SC is corrupt. I can give

countless more examples of SC protecting individual freedom and autonomy

against government or majority

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

Protected free speech and freedom of expression

New York Times Co. v. United States

Protected freedom of press against government trying to control the press.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Prevented government from denying people of attorney.

Mapp v. Ohio

Prevented government from conducting illegal searches

Texas v. Johnson

Prevented government from imprisoning people for flag burning

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Protected free speech and prevented government for imprisoning people for it

Stanley v. Georgia

Protected home privacy from government

Riley v. California

Prevented government from searching people's cell phones without warrant

United States v. Jones

Prevented warrantless GPS tracking

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

Protected freedom of religion from government.

Brown v. Board of Education

Prevented school segragation done by government

Loving v. Virginia

Struck down banning interracial marriage

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Protected first amendment for students in schools

Cohen v. California

Protected political speech against criminal punishment

Wooley v. Maynard

Protected citizens against government coercion

US SC has struck down thousands of government's acts which attempted to violate

individual rights and autonomy.

If it wasnt for it, thousands of government's violations of individuals would be labeled legal, countless more to follow.

By labeling them illegal, it has stopped them in tracks.

It is one thing standing between government and individual's rights and freedoms.

It is no wonder that politicians want more control over SC.

It is thing standing in their way.

My opponent based his case on what is likely, but I think it is more likely

that politicians push against SC because it blocks them.

Do we want to trust corrupt politicians, instead of SC who has protected us

countless times from corrupt politicians?

22. Absurd

Suppose that there is a higly competent judge with great history of good work, but his term

expires this year.

there is one other judge, judge who is not very competent and has a bad history,

but still has more than a decade till term limit.

By system proposed by opponent, the highly competent judge will be removed from position

this year, while judge who is incompetent will remain in position for over a decade.

Pro's plan doesnt measure competence.

23. My case

If my opponent sets term limits too short, he is giving

politicians in power control over supreme court fully.

If he sets term limit high, such as 18 years, he is keeping incompetent judges far longer

in position, while unavoidably also losing highly competent ones, and still

giving government much greater control over Supreme Court.

My solution allows short term limits for some judges who are incompetent.

they are removed from position faster than in opponent's case, while politicians

dont get control over SC.

Suppose that term limit was 4 years for incompetent ones by current Senate majority.

Once applied they get removed after 4 years from application.

Current government doesnt select next judges, merely removes incompetent ones,

and next government after 4 years selects judges to replace incompetent ones.

this largely prevents any single politician gaining power over Supreme Court,

while still holding Supreme Court accountable, maintaining balance.

Counters

1. trump

trump has only appointed 3 out of 9 SC justices.

Under my opponent's system, he would already appoint minimally 4, and it would be enough

for just 1 additional judge to die or be on trump's side already, for trump to hold majority

in SC. this would harm legitimacy of SC.

I mentioned that it would be enough to win 3 out of 4 elections to gain majority.

But even under 2 - 2 pattern, it still guarantees that party in power will have majority

in SC almost always. 2 - 2 means 4 judges appointed, thus it only takes 1

to die or already be on their side or be previously appointed, for ruling government

to have majority of their people in SC, something which should never happen, yet

is guaranteed to most often be the case under Pro's plan.

Pro says I didnt establish that trump is bad leader, but his own case relies on trump's bad

actions in SC, and majority is displeased with trump.

2. Opponent's unproved framework

My opponent said SC needs acceptance to ensure compliance,

while at same time claiming SC lost legitimacy.

However, people are still compliant with SC,

making his premise false by observation.

Claiming SC will lose compliance in future is unproved.

And even if so, SC should uphold individual rights even if other parts arent fully compliant

or agreeing. Should majority want to kill minority or take away their rights,

Supreme Court should uphold consitution and protect rights of minority,

irrelevant if majority is compliant. this is true by definition of "should",

which my opponent didnt challenge or offer alternative definition, while my definition

was defended with deductive logic which says to uphold autonomy instead of arbitrary

violations of it.

3. My framework

My opponent says "autonomy, freedoms" are undefined. these are common sense

words which everyone knows meaning of. they are understood as right of individual

to own and control his body and property, in other words, maximal possible equal freedom

of each individual.

My opponent says I didnt weigh it against his framework, but my framework is logically

deduced and true by deductive logic. His is false by observation, and doesnt define "should".

4. Competence measuring

My opponent says I didnt provide way to measure competence, but such test is to be provided by

Senate. On the other hand, his only way to measure competence is by compliance,

which itself isnt evidence of any competence. Hitler got compliance from his population,

but that isnt saying Hitler is competent leader.

5. Plan / brain drain

Opponent didnt provide any evidence that his plan will be put in effect,

producing uncertainty. Placing SC judges in senior role still

means removing them from role of judges, thus losing competent individuals in that role.

6. Cognitive ability / bad cases

My opponent still hasnt shown why new judges will be better, thus his case suffers

from uncertainty.

Bringing up cognitive decline is a smart move, but not all people experience that, nor has Pro

shown how small cognitive decline means worse performance than by brand new judge.

Many old people, such as corrupt trump himself, actually outperform much younger people

than them in many abilities.

I agree incompetent people should be replaced, but my opponent didnt provide any

effective way of replacing them. 18 years term limit still means possible cognitive decline

for anyone who comes with old age, and such is great majority of SC, and also no way to

remove them when it happens.

Bringing up that new people may have previous experience doesnt change no experience as

SC judge, which is entirely different area of law, area which all other areas rely on.

7. Accountability

Pro showed no deductive logic why term limits create accountability, and he has dropped

that under his system, incompetent stay in power just as competent ones.

8. Status quo, Con's plan

My opponent said my plan would give greater power to ruling government, but explains no why.

Says Status Quo gives more power to ruling government, but such is demonstratably false.

It is only Pro's plan which would guarantee ruling government to have almost always

majority in SC, such is not case now nor under my plan.

Round 3

3 of 3

whiteflame Global Moderator

Pro #5

Thank you, Con!

I'll lay out each of our cases separately, from framework to implementation, and finish with some direct comparisons.

Pro’s Case

I. Framework

I’ve laid out how JL functions and why it is essential to the SC. I’ll repeat my syllogism.

P1: JL is necessary for courts to function because courts depend on other branches to enforce their decisions.

P2: JL depends on public acceptance, which is strengthened by democratic accountability.

P3: If the Supreme Court loses legitimacy, then its ability to secure compliance with its rulings is weakened.

C: Therefore, if term limits would restore JL, they should be adopted.

Con hasn’t directly challenged these points. He does say the SC should maintain independence, but concedes that appointments are done by elected officials now, which neither of our plans changes, so independence is a pipe dream. Even if you buy his unwarranted assertion that more appointments = less independence for the court, he doesn’t explain how a lack of independence weakens JL, nor does he challenge how crucial JL is to the SC.

Con also argues that there isn’t a compliance problem, despite dropping that enforcement of SC rulings requires the Executive and Legislative branches to back its decisions. Disagreement undermines the SC’s legitimacy, resulting in threats to the physical safety of SC justices, electing representatives that challenge enforcement, and even compliance with rulings in the lower courts is varied based on other precedent. This lack of confidence in the court further degrades its ability to be fair and impartial, meaning that upholding JL bolsters SC autonomy.

II. Plan

18 year staggered term limits for all SC justices
Each current SC justice cycles off every 2 years from longest- to shortest-serving
Justices can continue as senior justices, hearing lower court cases and replacing SC justices who die/retire/recuse themselves

Con asserts that 18 years couldn’t yield any change in the short term (it can and would, see #2), and misunderstands #3. Justices would still work in the judiciary and, unlike the status quo or Con’s plan, retirements and deaths would not result in additional appointments to the SC.

Con also asserts that 18 years is too long, since cognitive decline can still happen and incompetent judges can remain for longer. These problems are worse in the status quo where the average is 26 years, and, as I’ll show later, Con does not solve them.

Con and I are both imposing term limits, so his point about uncertainty (#14) is non-unique. I know that he likes the Uncertainty Principle, but as he’s applied it here, the argument is nonsensical: Con claims that benefits aren’t guaranteed while harms are, but he never explains why. They’re both hypothetical outcomes from an untested plan, so they are equally uncertain. Those benefits, however, have warrants and evidence to support them. Con’s harms do not.

III. Advantages

1. Will of the People

A regular churn of justices on the SC better reflects public sentiment on societal issues. That increases public confidence in the court as they function as a more representative body.

Con argues that my plan increases the number of appointments per president on average. Since control over the ideology of the SC is a non-unique problem (these shifts happen without term limits and persist longer), this just concedes that my plan modernizes SC representation.

Con argues that this leads to majority rule, but concedes that politicians already get to decide who is on the court, and his own case subjects SC justices to the majority rule of senators who can arbitrarily remove them.

Con’s numerical analysis is inconsistent. He says that Trump appointing “only” 3 justices in his first administration was fine, but says it would have been worse if he’d only been guaranteed 2, even though that would also have given Biden 2. I argued last round that variance in appointments is the problem, because it dramatically shifts the balance of power based entirely on chance (who dies) and political maneuvering (if Congress can hold a seat open). Con dropped this point, and that previous runs of administrations like Ford to H.W. Bush resulted in wider discrepancies (6 justices for Republicans, 0 for Democrats).

2. Accountability

Regularity of appointments engenders greater incentives for elected officials to compromise and allows for greater public accountability on their choices. Con drops this, as well as the ways his plan and the status quo harm accountability through horse trading, strategic retirements, or efforts to control when a seat is filled, none of which are possible under my plan.

3. Refreshing the SC

Regardless of experience, turnover improves decision-making, reduces interpersonal animosity, and inspires public confidence and richer jurisprudence. Con drops these points.

Con argues that since replacements would be new to the SC, we should avoid doing it, despite the SC’s huge gaps in experience, facing cognitive decline, and a plethora of judges with experience in the federal judicial system available to replace them. He never states why their experience is insufficient and he provides no reason why learning on the job is bad when the SC already does.

Con’s Case

I. Framework

Con doesn’t weigh autonomy against JL, nor does he impact loss of autonomy for the SC justices. He argues that the 18 year term limit is both too short and too long at various points in the debate, making the impact of that duration unclear.

Instead, Con focuses on a slippery slope fallacy: autonomy lost for SC justices is autonomy lost for all. He doesn’t explain why term limits on elected officials haven’t caused a similar slide into oblivion for all autonomy. He also drops that term limits are not violations of autonomy and my application of them isn’t arbitrary. By contrast, his own case is an arbitrary imposition of term limits based on an unclear competency standard.

Note: “should” is not a word in the resolution, so Con’s attempt to define and wield it for his benefit are null.

II. Plan

Con added details to his plan in R2.

The plan still has no enforcement and no clear competency standard. He said it would “be provided by [the] Senate.” Despite Con arguing that it’s bad for elected representatives to influence the SC, he believes the Senate should arbitrarily decide on some unknown, infinitely mutable standard for competency, wielding it as a delayed action impeachment to remove justices they don’t like without hearings or appeals. What could go wrong?

III. Advantages

I’ve grouped Con’s points that function as advantages for his case.

1. Experience

Con argues that his case retains more experience on the bench.

In R1, Con said this experience is “crucial in decision making” and that justices “have a lot of memory of past cases,” but he doesn’t explain why their becoming senior justices that continue to support the SC is such a loss for the court. Con never cites any evidence that this experience is irreplaceable, but I’ve shown that a more diverse SC would be beneficial (see my points under “Refreshing the SC”).

2. Removal

This is the sole unique advantage to Con’s case. Con argues that he can remove incompetent justices.

The solvency is nebulous. Lack of clarity renders the standard entirely subjective, allowing the Senate to remove a justice for any reason it damn well pleases. They have to wait 4 years to appoint a new justice, but since the Senate is also required for that appointment, Con is just creating more opportunities for similar stand-offs to the one over Merrick Garland that will play out over longer stretches, potentially leaving the SC with empty seats for years.

And his impact is entirely theoretical. Con doesn’t cite a single SC justice he thinks should be removed nor does he describe a hypothetical justice that would warrant removal, and any successfully applied term limit would effectively trigger a 13 year delay before the next justice could be removed, raising the stakes of each removal.

3. Autonomy

Con maintains that autonomy of the SC is only possible by maintaining lifetime appointments.

Yet, Con grants the Senate the power to remove an SC justice at will, giving justices a unique incentive to decide cases such that a majority of senators agree. He’s actively harming the SC’s independence while they’re on the bench. Decisions like those Con listed under #21 (none of which are decisions of the current SC - they range from 1943-2014, excluding the modern conservative supermajority that has decided against transgender and racial minority groups) would all result in threats of removal to the justices in the majority, punishing them for protecting minorities. Removals can and would be weaponized, whereas universal term limits cannot.

Conclusion

This debate offers some straightforward comparisons.

I’ve shown how JL is essential to the function of the SC, and despite all of Con’s arguments that it shouldn’t be, public confidence is crucial.

By contrast, Con’s framework lacks specificity to the SC, lacks impact, Con actively harms it through his case, and I garner it better through JL.

I’ve shown and Con has conceded that public confidence is enhanced by imposing universal SC term limits, and how the resulting improvements to accountability and changes to the court improve its function.

By contrast, Con’s case employs a competency standard he leaves unclear wielded by the very representatives he mistrusts to remove justices he thinks should be independent and free to act without the imposition of elected officials.

If you agree that the politicized SC has led to a stagnant, unaccountable body that needs turnover to be effective, accountable and deserve the public trust required to be an effective body, vote Pro.

If you believe that the SC should pretend it’s not political despite both appointments and removals being decided by representative bodies and that its aging members are almost all irreplaceably brilliant, vote Con.

SatanLucy

Con #6

thank you for great debate, Whiteflame!

Win conditions

A. Opponent's case being unproved by deductive logic or observation

B. Justices should not have term limits at all

C. Some judges should have term limits, but not all

D. there are better ways to make accountability of judges

E. SC in current form has done more good than harm (proved by thousands of

examples), so changing its form puts at risk long term benefit of SC

of keeping politicians in check, risk which opponent didnt disprove

F. Push against SC is driven by corrupt politicians and their desire

to control it, which proves that motive behind term limits are in the interest

of corrupt politicians, and will benefit their corruption

G. term limits have unknown harms which make weighing benefits against unknwon

impossible, and thus proving case for them impossible (uncertainty principle)

All seven points must fail for me to lose, not just one.

Even if we assume each of 7 is even 80% likely to be false,

it is unlikely for all 7 of these to be false (20% chance to succeed each time rolled

7 times still gives above 70% chance of one roll to succeed), it makes my case much

more likely than opponent's case.

Pro must defeat both my plan and status quo. If his plan is better than mine, but inferior to status quo, he still

loses because topic is disproved and status quo upheld instead.

Conceded points

trump who served 2 terms would appoint 4 judges instead of current 3.

Pro's plan reduces checks and balances of power.

No proof that Pro's plan will even be implemented, over something politicians find more

suitable for them.

Pro's plan gives no incentive for judges to be competent. Competent and incompetent ones

get removed equally. Mine gives incentive to be competent, as only incompetent ones get

removed.

Pro's plan gives more power to corrupt politicians. President in power is guaranteed

to have majority in SC in any case of 3 - 1 or 2 - 2 victory in elections, which are case much

more often than not.

Uncertainty principle.

Pro did not give any weighing system to show benefits of his case outweigh known and unknown

harms.

Pro never challenged that under his plan,

corrupt politicians in power would almost always have majority in SC, reducing balance.

Examples of thousands of cases of SC upholding individual rights against current government.

Most politicians are corrupt, it means more influence

of corrupt politicians over SC while they are in power (reducing trust in SC).

Same is not true for status quo.

Giving corrupt politicians more power over SC wouldnt increase SC legitimacy. It

would ruin it.

Corrupt politicians = Increase corruption in area they have effect in

Corrupt politicians having more effect on SC = increased corruption in SC

Having compliance is not sign of competence or any good thing (Hitler had compliance).

Checks and balances of power being increased better protect individual rights.

SC should uphold individual rights and autonomy even in cases where it has no compliance

from majority or politicians, because individual rights are more important than

temporary trends. If majority doesnt agree with or strongly

opposes upholding autonomy, SC should still uphold it even if it reduces their approval by

masses,

and this is true by definition of "should" which wasnt challenged by opponent.

SC already has compliance from people and other branches of government. No proof it will

ever lose it in future.

SC judges get replaced more often = politicians in power control SC more often

All other courts rely on SC, so to allow more political corruption in it would endanger not

just SC, but other courts as well.

there is no any guarantee or proof that Pro's plan will actually be put in effect as Pro

describes it, instead it is more likely some other plan which corrupt politicians in power

find more suitable for them will be used.

Definition of "should" wasnt challenged, nor did opponent give a different definition,

thus it is the only valid definition of "should/ought" in this debate.

these points were never challenged, thus voters must consider them as true in this debate.

Counters

1. Uncertainty principle

Claim that it applies to us both equally is not true.

With majority of burden of proof being on Pro, equal uncertainty means

Pro's burden is not met.

If our cases are 50/50 likely, it is Pro who loses as he holds majority of burden of proof,

and needs above 50% probability to merely not lose.

2. Guaranteed harms

Pro never denied that under his plan, corrupt politicians

get to choose SC judges more often.

3. Benefits

Opponent didnt use any deductive logic or observation example to show any guaranteed

benefits of his plan. He didnt show why new judges will be better than previous ones.

He mentions strategic retirements and other problems, but never explains why they cant happen in his case, or why my case suffers from them, when my case is the only one with ways of punishing corrupt behavior. His is not.

4. die/retire cases

If he decides to bring back judges with expired term to replace them, then he makes

case worse for him because he is bringing back the very people he complained about

this whole time and labeled them corrupt.

5. Politicians elect SC judges anyway

My opponent says "politicians elect SC anyway, so let them do it even more".

this is like saying "politicians do harm anyway, so let them do more harm",

or "politicians are difficult to keep in check from abusing their power,

so let them be even less in check".

Its a nonsense argument at best, and at worst, its argument against Pro's case.

Under current status quo, judges get independent from current politicians in power much

more often, which provides checks to current politicians in power.

6. Public confidence in SC

My opponent says public confidence in SC is enhanced by term limits, but he showed

no observation or deduction of this.

Not one single example was given by Pro anywhere, of any country, placing term limits

and trust in SC growing. Probably because there was no such example to be found.

this makes his case unproved by any real example.

He likewise dropped that term limits didnt make public confidence in trump any more enhanced,

who now has lowest approval ever.

He did not explain why term limits would make masses more confident in SC, when

same didnt apply to politicians ever.

7. No test of incompetence?

My opponent says I didnt give any test to measure incompetence, but his own case relies

on incompetence and corruption in current SC. So he already agrees that incompetence exists,

and he already gave description (test) of what counts as incompetence, so I dont need to.

8. My framework

Opponent didnt understand my framework, which wasnt ever about autonomy of SC specifically.

It is about autonomy of all.

to uphold autonomy = checks and balances of current power must exist and increase

giving current government more control over SC = less checks and balances against current

government

giving current government more control over SC = less checks and balances exist to protect

individual rights and uphold autonomy if current government tries to violate it

Opponent already dropped that current SC struck down trump's attempt to deny birthright

citizenship, thus saving millions. Under Pro's plan, trump who got elected twice would

already have at least 4 of his people in SC, and it would be enough for trump to have just

1 more on SC on his side to gain majority, and with that, rights of millions would

be removed.

these are the checks and balances I am talking about. It means when corrupt politician gets

in power, there are other parts of system which limit his power.

Pro never responded to checks and balances argument, despite that it was presented in

round 1 and round 2, part of my framework that autonomy is best upheld if

checks and balances exist, because if they dont, there is nothing to stop corrupt

government currently in power.

Pro's only response is that politicians elect SC anyway, but my argument was about

current government. Under Pro's system, current government elects 2 judges every

4 years, while current average for status quo is 1 judge every 4 years.

Pro is effectively guaranteeing current government will not just have more of their

people in SC on average, but it takes merely winning 2 elections in 16 years (which happens

almost always) for current government to most likely

have majority of their own in SC.

My plan deals with incompetence much more efficiently,

while at same time guaranteeing that current government merely gives application

for removal of incompetent judges, those judges are removed 4 years later, so next government

elects judges.

My plan effectively allows more diversity, because one government removes judges,

next government places new ones.

Under his plan, current government elects judges always, meaning that current government

always has more power over SC than both in status quo and my plan, endangering ability

of SC to defend individual constitutional rights against current government.

Further, my plan is about proved incompetence. It isnt politicians arbitrarily removing

judges.

9. "Should" definition

My opponent's only response to definition of "should" is that its not part of resolution and

is irrelevant to debate.

two responses:

1. Should and ought are same words effectively in this topic. Defining one defines another.

2. Pro's own framework entirely relies on use of word "should" in the most crucial

part of his framework:

"C: Therefore, if term limits would restore JL, they should be adopted."

If word "should" is irrelevant to this debate, then his framework is irrelevant to

this debate as well. And because opponent didnt define should nor ought, what follows is that

he is using deductive logic with an undefined word, and undefined words cannot be used

in deductive logic because they have no any meaning to deduce conclusion from.

SatanLucy

#31

Ok, one more vote I guess and then we can move to next round.

SatanLucy

#30

--> @Lunatic

Thank you for voting!

Lunatic Community Contributor

#29

np!

whiteflame Global Moderator

#28

--> @Lunatic

Thank you for the detailed vote!

Kohai Administrator

#27

--> @whiteflame, @SatanLucy, @Kohai

>Reported Vote: Kohai // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: tie
>Reason for Decision: other
>Reason for Mod Action:
test

Kohai Administrator

#26

---Kohai's former vote---
Voted for: tie
test est

SatanLucy

#25

Well, somebody better fucking vote already because I have been waiting for months to get the last 2 votes. I dont care if its votes against my position, even I dont agree with my position. But I cant move to next round because of this vote delay, and whole thing is just stuck for months.

Sidewalker

#24

I thought it said "The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be terminated."

I would have voted yes.

SatanLucy

#23

--> @RemyBrown

I agree too. I don't really even know anyone who disagrees or at least strongly argues against it.

People who oppose term limits are usually minority who is at same time neutral on topic mostly.

I assume the only ones who strongly argue against term limits are judges themselves. I can't really imagine anyone else having interest in defending this specific side, other than some politicians maybe who want to gain favor of Supreme Court.

RemyBrown

#22

I agree with limiting Supreme Court Justice terms.

Savant Administrator

#21

--> @SatanLucy

The free voting badges expire after a few days. I think ppl are just busy, but I'll try to spur them along.

SatanLucy

#20

--> @Savant

I have pretty much occupied all debates I could, and still no votes incoming on my debate.

I don't think we can start next round if people refuse to vote, unless somehow everyone got their voting badges already (which I guess is technically possible if they clicked to get them before any debate was in voting period).

SatanLucy

#19

--> @Savant

I will, eventually. Just dont have time right now. Voting for me usually takes few hours.

Savant Administrator

#18

--> @SatanLucy

If you vote on the other ultrarated debates, it will make it more likely future voters are assigned to this debate.

SatanLucy

#17

This is sure slow to get votes.

Savant Administrator

#16

--> @Ragnar

"In hindsight, I question if this is an ideal candidate for the ultrarated debates. A case can be made for either side, but the audience here is going to skew away from traditions."

Well with the vote rubric and strict guidelines for UltraRated, I'm not sure audience bias is that big a factor. And with sides randomly assigned, in theory it will balance out over time. But fair point that there might be more balanced topics to choose.

SatanLucy

#15

--> @Ragnar

forgot to tag

SatanLucy

#14

It didnt end, it needs 2 more votes.

And yeah, as I said, I would actually prefer to be Pro here. Con is defending the least popular position, only 23% of people agree with Con. Even I disagree with Con entirely.

As for formatting, I was copying from notepad and yeah, I dont really know why it comes out as it does. I guess next time I gonna write in notepad without making too many spaces, because spaces in notepad and spaces here seem to be somehow a different thing.

Ragnar Global Moderator

#13

I was meaning to vote on this, but I guess it ended already. But a few comments...

In hindsight, I question if this is an ideal candidate for the ultrarated debates. A case can be made for either side, but the audience here is going to skew away from traditions.

Formatting hurts cases. There was a lot of weird line breaks in con's case. I would also suggest the counters section borrow the section headings directly from pro's case.

SatanLucy

#12

--> @Savant

Thanks for voting! And yeah, I can say for sure I wasn't basing my case on a democratic will. If that were the case, I would lose from start cuz term limits are extremely popular idea.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#11

--> @Ragnar

Damn, you found my Achilles heel!

whiteflame Global Moderator

#10

--> @Savant

Thanks for voting!

SatanLucy

I knew I missed something.

Ragnar Global Moderator

--> @SatanLucy

“Good luck, have fun”

You missed a golden opportunity here. Had it ended with “don’t die” you would have instantly assisted the attention span of any geek who reads your case.

whiteflame Global Moderator

--> @SatanLucy

I enjoyed delving into the topic with you, great job!

SatanLucy

--> @whiteflame

thank you for great debate. I rushed it a bit so I can focus on playing Smite.

SatanLucy

Formatting got a bit messed up, which is why my round looks a lot longer.

SatanLucy

--> @whiteflame

Very good first round. I didnt use as many sources as you did, because I assume what I am saying about trump scandals is common knowledge at this point.

SatanLucy

--> @whiteflame

Alright, just do your best and I will too, and we will see where it goes.

whiteflame Global Moderator

--> @SatanLucy

It's not a topic I know a lot about, either, so I'll be starting my research from scratch on this one. This is the side I would pick, but it's also my 5th Ultrarated round in a row as Pro. Would've preferred to roll devil's advocate on this one.

Lunatic Community Contributor

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

RFD: Pro wins

Good debate, and a pretty big topic so I'm gonna try and keep this organized. One thing first: the description puts most of the burden of proof on Pro since this would need a constitutional amendment. So I wasn't just asking who did a little better. I was asking if Pro actually proved term limits are worth changing things for.

Frameworks

Pro's framework was judicial legitimacy. Basically the Court has no army and no budget, so it needs other branches and the public to actually follow its rulings. That only happens if people trust it, and Pro said term limits would help bring that trust back. Pro backed this up with alot of evidence like low public confidence, the ethics scandals, the Garland seat, justices timing thier retirements, and the shadow docket.

Con's framework was autonomy and independence. The idea makes sense but Pro pointed out that Con never said how you would actually measure autonomy, and Con never really fixed that. Con's best attack was "people still follow the Court so theres no real legitimacy problem." Pro answered in R3 that you can already see the trust problem with threats against justices, politicians pushing back on enforcing rulings, and lower courts following it unevenly. Pro also said legitimacy helps autonomy because a Court nobody trusts cant protect anyones rights. Con never compared autonomy to legitimacy, so i'm going with Pro's framework. The "should" definition argument didnt change anything for me either. Even if should and ought mean the same thing, that doesn't make Pro's argument wrong.

Con's best point: presidential control

This was the biggest clash and Con's best argument. Con said term limits give presidents more control over the Court (Trump gets 4 picks instead of 3) and that the current Court stopped Trump on birthright citizenship. Fr thats a real concern and I took it seriously.

Pro's answer was that the real problem right now is how random it is. Seats open up when someone dies or when politicians play games with timing, so one president got 3 justices in one term and another got 1. Ford through H.W. Bush got 6 and Carter got 0. Pro said two picks every term makes it match who actually wins elections instead of luck. Con kept saying more picks means more control but never really responded to the randomness point. Pro also never directly answered the birthright citizenship example, which did hurt Pro a little. But Con's harm depended on alot of "ifs" (Trump wins twice, gets 4 justices, finds one more ally) while Pro's harms are already happening based on the evidence. Pro wins this one, but it was the closest part of the debate.

Experience vs fresh blood

Con argued that term limits throw away experience, and that a really great justice gets kicked out just because the clock ran out. I get the point, but Pro had a few good answers. First, 18 years is still a long time, and Pro's plan keeps old justices around as "senior justices" who hear lower court cases and fill in when someone dies, retires, or recuses. So the experience doesnt just disappear. Second, Pro said there are around 1,770 federal judges with constitutional law experience, so its not like there's nobody qualified to replace them. Third, Pro brought up research on cognitive aging, which made Con's "longer is always better" point weaker. Con also said justices would be distracted worrying about thier next job, but the senior justice role pretty much answers that too. Con never really came back to these responses in a way that changed things, so this clash goes to Pro.

Pro also argued that new justices would help with the tension and animosity on the current Court and bring in backgrounds that are missing right now, like public defenders and trial judges. Con asked where Pro got the idea that new justices are better, which is fair, but Pro's argument wasn't that new people are smarter. It was that regular turnover stops a small group from holding power for decades. Con didn't really answer that version of the argument.

Protecting minorities

Con listed a bunch of big cases like Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, Gideon, and Tinker to show the Court protects rights even when the majority doesn't want it to. That was a decent point to bring up. The problem is Pro pointed out all of those cases are from 1943 to 2014, and Pro brought up recent decisions on voting rights, affirmative action, and transgender protections that go the other way. Pro also said his plan would rotate out the justices behind those rulings way faster than Con's plan would. Con didn't really respond to the timeline issue, so the list of old cases didn't help Con as much as it could have.

Con's counterplan

This is where Con kinda lost it tbh. Con wanted term limits only for "incompetent" justices, with the Senate deciding who's incompetent. Pro pointed out some big problems Con never really answered. Theres no standard for what counts as incompetent, nothing to enforce it, and it gives removal power to the same politicians Con said we cant trust. Pro's best point here was that justices would start ruling however the Senate wants so they don't get removed, which hurts the exact independence Con was trying to protect. Also, if Con thinks some justices should be term limited, thats kind of admitting term limits are fine, which made it harder for Con to argue against the resolution.

Uncertainty and burden

Con argued that since nobody knows the future harms, we should keep things how they are, especially with the burden on Pro. Pro said this works against Con too because Con's plan hasnt been tested either, and Pro's benefits had sources while most of Con's harms didnt. Even with the burden on Pro, I think Pro met it. The R3 math about 7 win conditions with 80% each didn't really work for me. The numbers were made up and alot of the conditions rely on the same arguments, so they aren't really 7 seperate chances.

Dropped points

Pro said Con never answered the stuff about horse trading, justices timing retirements, and the Senate holding seats open. Con said Pro never explained how term limits fix this, but the plan kind of explains itself. If appointments happen on set dates theres nothing to time or hold open. Con's R3 list of things Pro "conceded" was mostly stuff Pro actually argued against, so I didn't count them.

Strategy and presentation

Pro picked one framework and tied everything back to it, which made the debate easy to follow. Con ran a ton of separate arguments (like 12+ in R1) and some of them overlapped, like punishing competence, experience, and the "pick me" argument. It was hard to tell which ones Con actually needed to win. Some of Con's writing was hard to follow too, but I tried not to let that affect how I judged the arguments themselves.

How the debate shifted

After R1 I honestly thought it was closer than the final result. Con had a lot of arguments on the board and the presidential control point looked strong. In R2 Pro answered most of them one by one and hit the counterplan hard, and Con spent alot of R2 and R3 repeating earlier points instead of answering Pro's new responses. By R3 Con was mostly listing "concessions" and win conditions, while Pro was comparing the two cases directly. That's a big reason the margin ended up bigger than it looked after the first round.

How Con could have won

Con should have dropped the counterplan and gone all in on presidential control and the birthright citizenship example, since Pro never answered that directly. Con could have argued that independence is what makes the Court legit in the first place, so Pro's plan actually hurts Pro's own framework. Con also needed a couple recent examples of the Court checking a president, not cases from 1943 to 2014, because Pro easily brushed those off as a different Court.

Decision

Pro won the framework, won the presidential control clash because of the randomness point, won on experience, and showed the counterplan would hurt the Court's independence. Burden was high but Pro met it. Vote Pro.

Savant Administrator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

The framework proposed by Pro is judicial legitimacy, defined as “the public’s acceptance of courts as rightful arbiters whose authority and decisions merit deference.” Con’s proposed framework is “autonomy and freedoms,” which he leaves pretty vaguely defined. Pro argues that Con’s framework is difficult to measure and gives a syllogism to support judicial legitimacy. The syllogism isn’t challenged, but Con says the words autonomy and freedom have commonly understood definitions. At the end of this, Pro’s framework seems more specific and thus easier to measure, and he’s giving more support for it as opposed to assuming it’s self-evident. Con accuses Pro of not using deductive reasoning, but Pro did use a syllogism, and I don’t see Con using a syllogism for every single part of his case, so overall they seem on equal footing there. Pro defines or at least addresses the implications of “ought,” and Con claims that “defining one [should/ought] defines [the other],” which contradicts Con’s accusation that Pro never defined “should.” So I’m using judicial legitimacy to grade this debate.

Pro gives a lot of sources on the status quo which imply a lack of trust likely caused by the lack of term limits (not representative of current generations, use of the shadow docket, animosity). There’s empirical evidence here that Con never responds to, so much of Pro’s solvency remains, even with Con working to mitigate it in very broad strokes.

With Con’s offensive case, the points relevant to judicial legitimacy are experience, accountability via impeachment, and impartiality, which Pro has said are part of his framework. Pro shows empirical evidence that the current pool of justices lacks certain kinds of experience that they could get off the SC, and he points out that impeachment is both non-unique to Con’s case and ineffectual. Presidential appointments to the court is a non-unique issue as Pro points out, and even if Con’s plan leads to less frequent appointments, they persist longer, and the court can be more unbalanced. And more frequent appointments modernizes representation, which can improve accountability. Con doesn’t respond to these points from Pro specifically in a way that ties to judicial legitimacy, which means Pro is the only one gaining offense on the judicial legitimacy framework. Many of Con’s attacks on democracy end up not holding much weight once the judicial legitimacy framework wins out. Once I’m using Pro’s framework, perception of the populace in general is really all that matters, so Con portraying his own plan as undemocratic is only really working to hurt his case. Of course Con didn’t know ahead of time what framework would win, but I think with his case being the way it is it would have been wise to go more in depth attacking Pro’s framework and addressing every point on that front. Protecting minorities is great, except I don’t see Con linking it to judicial legitimacy, and perception of the majority ends up weighing more than autonomy due to the winning framework. There’s room for an argument that in hindsight these rulings make the court look more impartial and help it to earn long-term trust, but I don’t see Con making that argument explicitly enough to gain offense on that front.

That leaves the uncertainty principle, which Pro points out is nonunique to his case. Con brings up the burden of proof, but given that Pro has provided a lot of evidence to support his offense, and Con doesn’t gain any significant offense on the judicial legitimacy framework, I think Pro’s case is more than enough to meet his burden. Also, with nothing from Con to impact out the specific BoP threshold, I’m inclined not to put too heavy of a burden on Pro. Typically BoP just means Pro has to take the initiative to make a case that Con doesn’t effectively refute, and that’s what happens here.

Removed Votes

Kohai Administrator

test est

Burden of proof

Definitions

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

New comment

Removed Votes