Parliamentary Debate (DEC 2018)
Current Research for the MLA Parli Debate Topic(s)…
Topic(s):
1. On-balance, the automobile has done more harm than good.
2. Supreme Court justices should have term limits.
3. North Bergen Liberty Generating facility should not be built.
Background:
Some potentially helpful ideas from brain-storming…
Whiteboard Photos (& Research Packets):
[Later! – If at all]
[Required] Research Media & Videos:
[Topic-01] A bump in the road: Can autonomous vehicles do more harm than good?
IT Business (Canada), November 28, 2016 — 1 min
https://youtu.be/KCMZuDVBE4Q
[Topic-02] Should Justice Ginsburg retire? Debating term limits for the Supreme Court,
PBS News Hour, October 2, 2014 — 7 min
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/justice-ginsburg-retire-debating-term-limits-supreme-court-2
[Topic-03] Officials announce that $1.8B electricity plant coming to North Bergen by 2022
The Hudson County View, April 25, 2018 — 3 mins
https://hudsoncountyview.com/officials-announce-that-1-8b-electricity-plant-coming-to-north-bergen-by-2022/
IMPORTANT: Please read the short article as well. Thanks!
[Required] Research Articles:
[Topic-01] Debate Ideas for Use in American English (Chapter 9),
Paul Noll, Author, Last Accessed: November 2018
http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-09-cars-pro.html
http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-09-cars-con.html
[Topic-02] Commentary: Should 18 years be the limit for Supreme Court justices?,
Washington Post (Special Report), March 24, 2017
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-supreme-court-term-limits-18-years-20170324-story.html
[Topic-03] Proposed generating plant in the Meadowlands sparks conflict,
NJTV-PBS News, May 8, 2018 — 3 min
https://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/proposed-generating-plant-in-the-meadowlands-sparks-conflict/
IMPORTANT: Please watch the video too. Thanks!
[Optional] Research Articles & Videos:
[Topic-02] Video Commentary: Is it time for term limits on the Supreme Court?,
CBS News, August 6, 2018 — 12 min
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-is-it-time-for-term-limits-on-the-supreme-court/
[Topic-02] Pros and Cons of Potential Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices,
Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Columbia Law School, March 25, 2014
https://www.law.columbia.edu/media_inquiries/news_events/2014/march2014/scotus-term-limits
[Topic-02] 7 Pros & Cons Of Supreme Court Justice Term Limits For You To Consider,
Joseph D. Lyons, Bustle, July 10, 2018
https://www.bustle.com/p/7-pros-cons-of-supreme-court-justice-term-limits-for-you-to-consider-9713408
Contact Information (Coach Bill):
Bill Eddy,
billeddy@magnetacademy.com
714.655.8135 (I prefer text)
When contacting me, please include your name and class day/time. Thanks!
Purpose of Lifetime Appointment and Pros and Cons,
The Constitution on Laws.com (Legal Blog), Last Accessed: December 2018
https://constitution.laws.com/supreme-court-justices/purpose-of-lifetime-appointment-and-pros-and-cons
The Constitution provides for the lifetime appointment of every Supreme Court Justice, though not through any direct language. Instead, the document addresses the ability of Court Justices to hold office “during good Behavior” and does not provide for the necessity that a Court Justice resign after a certain age or period of service. This lack of a term limit was first implemented during the tenure of John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice, to indicate that Court Justices could remain on the bench for the remainder of their lives, as did Marshall.
Though the requirement for “good behavior” presents the one exception to the lifetime term of a Court Justice, as can be implemented in law through Congressional impeachment, this option is rarely used and not often seriously considered. The single instance of this happening, the impeachment of Samuel Chase in 1805, ended with the Congressional determination that the move was purely political and lacked acceptable grounds for proceeding.
The basic purpose of lifetime appointment is to assure the integrity of the power granted to Court Justices and protect them against unwarranted interference from either the legislative or executive branch. The express and implicit separation of the Supreme Court from the other branches of Government is therefore upheld. In accordance with the principle of providing checks and balances, the executive
and legislative branches exercise control over the Supreme Court by, respectively, proposing and approving candidates for that body.
In the highly politicized atmosphere which has long attended the nominally apolitical arena of Court Justices, Presidents often attempt to buttress their agendas by selecting Court Justice nominees favorable toward their views. At times, however, the judicial leanings of Court Justices prove different in practice than they had previously appeared. The policy of lifetime appointment, therefore, secures a Court Justice against “retribution” for decisions going against the wishes of his or her Presidential sponsor. In this regard, proponents have cited Alexander Hamilton’s declaration in the Federalist Papers that “nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office”.
Various concerns have also been raised about the ways in which lifetime appointment impinges on the office of Supreme Court Justices. One concern is that this policy encourages the Supreme Court to be dominated by thinking better fitted to the formative years of the Court Justices than to the present-day conditions of the United States. In this view, the Supreme Court would be better served by more frequent turnover in its membership.
Another issue that has been raised is of the mental capacities of a Supreme Court Justice becoming diminished with age. This possibility could not conceivably fall under the purview of the requirement for “good Behavior” and at present is not provided for under U.S. law.
Criticisms of the general policy of lifetime appointment has also been stoked by the criticism of specific Supreme court Justices and of the Court’s culture in general for moving toward a more legislative, politicized function, which critics might find less problematic if offenders did not remain on the bench for so long.