Minutes from Jan. 17th Debate
maria.o...@yale.edu
The Speaker announces that there is a change in our guest for this
evening. That Nan Aron could not make it but Seth Rosenthal the legal
director of the Alliance for Justice has come to speak in her place.
She announced that the meeting would be adjourning to Yorkside and
everyone is invited.
This meeting is slightly different then all other meetings because it
is the Organizational Meeting, and each of the party chairs/ Chairmen
and the President give a welcoming speech.
The Chair of the Liberal Party gave a speech. He told the body that
this is the time to stand up. He asked the body if they believed in the
values of Social justice and human rights. If you want to make the
world a better place then the Liberal Party, the oldest party of the
union is for you. The Liberal Party is not about useless rhetoric or
formal clothing but actual debates. The Liberal Party hosts other
events and meets with many distinguished people. The Liberal Party is a
group of friends. The Chair of the Liberal Party reminded the body that
everyone can contribute no matter their beliefs or speech experience.
He welcomed the body to attend their first debate in the Branford
common room, Thursday at 7:30, with the resolution, "Resolved:
Abolish private charity."
The Chairman of the Progressive Party gave a speech. I did not prepare
for this speech. So I guess I should convince people why you should
join the Progressive Party, which is the same as why you should not go
to any of the other parties. The Conservative Party, is the
conservative party. The Tory Party, who do they even debate in the Tory
party, the Whigs? The Party of the right's sole purpose is to keep
the center of gravity on the right. The Independent Party, doesn't
even know what it is independent from. The Liberal Party, you aren't
really liberal, you should be out at central park helping people.
You're just conservative in your liberally. The Progressive Party is
the only one left and we are not a bad party. We are about Progress and
we have a lot of Jewish people. The Chairman of the Progressive Party
invited the body to the first Progressive Party debate. "Resolved:
State sponsored terrorism should be an Olympic event."
The Chairman of the Independent Party gave a speech. We live polarize
world. The politics are more complex. We are forced to be Liberal or
Conservative. I joined the Independent Party so I would not be boxed in
to an idea. There are people from all political views in the
Independent Party. College is far to early a time to set your political
views in stone. In the Independent Party, we discuss issues seriously,
but not ourselves. If you would like to hear a wide range of opinions,
then our door is open to you. This semester we invite you to visit us,
as our party members visit other floors. The chairman of the
Independent Party welcomed the body to the first IP debate, with the
resolution, Resolved: America is not the land of opportunity.
The Chairman of the Conservative party gave a speech. For the three or
four of you thinking about joining a party, I ask you who are you and
why are you here, of all the things you could be doing? What do you
wish to gain from your experience at Yale. Many of you do not have an
answer to this question. I stand here to offer you a means to help you
find that answer. We believe is honor and integrity. We are a group
that will help you get closer to truth. We at the Conservative Party,
find the study of history important to find our paths. Party members
discuss these questions over dinners, and Mory's lunches. We are
group or Fiends. We invite you to our first debate, "Resolved: The
great state needs an enemy."
The Chairman of the Tory Party gives a speech. Mr. Grant is the 78th
chairman of the Tory Party. Tory party members come from distinguished
backgrounds. I attended bar for two terms. The Tory party is the only
party which fully understands the framework of tradition, civilization.
The Tories do care what you think. This is the only true conservative
party. We are traditionalists; we value truth, honor, beauty, slow
change, ideas over ideology, and reason over rhetoric. Our common goal
is the truth. Our members have become leaders in society. We invite all
to attend our first debate in which we will debate Resolved: revenge is
always wrong.
The Chairman of the Party of the Right gives an announcement. The
freedom of college, allows people break free from the past and find
themselves. This freedom to find meaning in your own life. There are
hundreds of organizations which say they can help you find meaning in
your life but the vast majority of them wont. The importance of college
is finding intensity and authenticity. You may find something that is
intense, but you need authenticity. My name is Philip Andrew Patrick
Olson III, and my party is both authentic and intense. We have a
dedication to the pursuit of truth. We care not what you think only
that you think. This is the ultimate college experience. We care not
what you think, only that you think. I invite you to our first debate,
Resolved: Eat the Apple. Standing on our floor is an act of courage,
but the reward is great. The choice is simple, you can join one of the
other parties, or you can petition for membership in the Party of the
Right.
The President gives an announcement. Welcome. The Union is a Shared
project. There are two reasons we all come together. The ideas we
discuss here matter, but the discussions do not. We all understand the
importance of our ideas. We choose talk over action, there are no
political constraint, and there are no excuses to not take you ideas to
the extent of their logic.There is no reason not to be friends with
those who sit across the aisle. I challenge you to be honest with
yourself. It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Rosenthal from the
Alliance for Justice. The Alliance for Justice is very active in the
nomination process. In the past it was successful in defeating Supreme
Court nominations.
Before joining the Alliance for Justice, Mr. Rosenthal served as a
trial
attorney in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. While at
the
Justice Department, Mr. Rosenthal was also a member of the Attorney
General's
We are lucky to have him came here to discuss the appointment of Judge
Allito to the Supreme Court. Ask yourself, "What are appropriate
grounds to reject an appointment?"
The President moves the topic for the debate Resolved: Reject Judge
Allito
Mr. Rosenthal, thanks the Union for having him come. He was sent in the
on a train today, when Nan Aron could not make it. He admits he do not
have debating experiencing. I am glad that you guys have this debating
society. This is important. Especially at this time in our nations
history. Judge Allito's appointment should be a taken seriously. He
is very far to the right. Judge Allito has a long and consistent record
of interpreting the laws in a way that undermine the constitution. He
will be replacing Justice O'Conner's seat. She has been a swing
vote. Harriet Mires was rejected because her views were not
conservative enough. Judge Allito is not a traditional conservative. 91
percent of his decent rate is far more conservative then judges other
then other conservatives. Judge Allito has worked, reveals that results
do mater to him, and he rarely supports individual rights. There is a
close link between their legal conclusions and his political opinions.
That is not what a judge is supposed to be about. There are four issues
I want to address Allito's record on Government intrusion and privacy
rights, on Presidential authority, on Civil rights and on federalism.
Quoting a George Washington Professor, Allito says, I have rarely seen
an equal in Allito's bias towards the government. 84 percent of Judge
Allito's docents are against individual rights. 82 percent of all
cases he votes against protections for human rights, versus 54 to 46
with the average judge. In a case where a Police officer shot an
unarmed boy in the back simply to prevent his escape, Judge Allito said
that that was reasonable action. By Allito's interpretation, shooting
a boy in the back was okay by the fourth amendment. All of the judges
on the Supreme Court disagreed with his decision. Every split decision,
Allito decides against human rights. In a case with a strip search of a
mother and her ten-year-old daughter, where no warrant was granted to
search them, Allito voted that it was fine the police conducted the
unauthorized strip search. Allito is also particularly proud of
rejecting the woman's right to choose.
The second issue is Allito's views on presidential power. Bush has
violated laws and extended his powers, with wire taps, and holding
American citizens captive with out a trial. Judge Allito's record
suggests these are things he supports. Allito supports expanding
presidential power. He would like the president to be able to sign laws
and specify what the law means, taking power away from the legislature.
Approving signing statements, puts power in the hands of the president
diminishes the power of the courts.
All civil rights groups are against Allito's appointment. In just
about every case judge Allito rules in favor of the employer. Mr.
Rosenthal sited a number of Allito's rulings on civil rights cases.
Lastly Mr. Rosenthal brought up the issue of Federalism and explained
Allito's somewhat contradictory and highly extreme takes on
federalism. Judge Allito, voted to strike down the ban to machine guns
possession.
Mr. Rosenthal concluded. If any of this concerns you then I urge you to
vote in the affirmative tonight.
Mr. Curish: Do you believe that Judge Allito is more conservative then
Justice Ginsberg is liberal.
Mr. Rosenthal: No. You have to understand the background of the
Ginsberg Nomination. The Republicans were in the minority. Clinton had
gotten support from the ranking minority leader. He was thinking about
nominating Bruse Bag. Clinton actually nominated someone who was
supported by the minority leader. She was a moderate in her voting
record before she became a Supreme Court Judge.
The Chairman of the Party of the Right: We have this long record of her
and other judges that have changed after becoming Supreme Court Judges.
Could you comment on how court opinions are not perfect predictors of
voting on the Supreme Court and wha barring this may have in the Allito
nomination?
Mr. Rosenthal: Court opinions are decent predictors but they are not
perfect predictors of how Justaces will vote on the Supreme Court.
Circuit court judges are bound by president of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court judges are not. One has to focus on the major actions the
Judges try to take, judge Allito would fight against acts of congress.
This is very frightening when we are facing someone like Judge Allito.
The Chair of the Liberal Party: Do you think any one of his actions
would be enough to prove that Allito is not suitable?
Mr. Rosenthal: No, it is the combination of all of them, there is too
much.
Chief Whip of the Tory Party: Judges were over three degrees removed
from the people. Does this it actually matter that judges are
particularly liberal or conservative. Shouldn't their appointment be
based on whether they are a good judge?
Mr. Rosenthal: This has mattered a long time. Politics has played in
since the beginning. Judges are supposed to be somewhat close to the
people, because they must be confirmed by the Senate. No, it doesn't
matter exactly what their political views are but it does matter how
they interpret the constitution. If it were about getting a good judge
Allito would not be here. The bottom line is Harriet Mires was not
conservative enough.
The foaming at the mouth, Floor Leader of the Right posed a speech in
the form of a question. There are lots of qualified candidates. There
is justification for anything. Shouldn't we consider that
congressional power is not just something we defer to. Shouldn't we
support the presidential signing statement that allows the president to
interpret the laws. We need to have a judiciary that is capable of
allowing other idea instead of a purely ideological judiciary. Could
the gentleman respond to that?
Mr. Rosenthal: I don't know what right wing publications you've
been reading, but yes we need justices on the right left and middle.
Harriet was qualified. She was not appointed because she was not
conservative enough. The Republican Party could not be certain she
would bring the court to the Right.
Alexander Gregath (POR): There was opposition to Harriet Mires. But
there were plenty of arguments that the Democrats were going to bring
up. What might the arguments have been?
Mr. Rosenthal: No one knew what her ideology was. Democrats had not
come out in support of her or in opposition to her. Republicans were
saying the same thing.
The President, moves that we thank Mr. Rosenthal for his fine maiden
speech on the floor of the Yale
The first speech in the Negative was give by the Sometime Chairman of
the Conservative Party. Judicial restraint is something we want to see.
And by judicial restrain he means that we should defer to the
President. The reason there are so many "conservative" judges
overturning congressional laws is because in the post FDR era Congress
had over stepped its constitutional bounds. This is a problem. A
candidate's political philosophy should mater, but whether or not
congress understands whether or not abortion is protected in the
constitution, does not matter. There are things the constitution allows
and things it does not. Machinegun ownership is protected in the
constitution, abortion is not. These are political issues. The Supreme
Court needs to have an open mind as to what the government can do, the
way Judge Allito has supported. We need checks and balances. And then
he was gaveled down.
The Floor Leader of the Left: If the constitution does have clear right
and wrong answers, as the gentleman believes, why do people study the
constitution their whole lives and not know the answers and how do you
and as undergrad know them?
The Sometime Chairman of the Conservative Party: There are varied
interpretations of the constitution, but judges are not supposed to
read into the constitution.
Mrs. Lingwingdsavage. When discussing civil rights the gentleman stated
that those should only be protected if they meet certain standards.
Could the gentlemen qualify this statement.
The Sometime Chairman of the Conservative Party: The people's rights
who are taken are those who are suspected of committing a crime. Their
rights do not need to be protected because they are criminals.
The Senior Sometime Chairman of the Party of the Right: Did the
gentleman just say that suspected criminals have no rights? That is a
direct violation of the fourth amendment.
The Sometime Chairman of the Conservative Party: No, I did not say that
they had no rights. That's not what I meant to say. There are certain
rights that they no longer have.
Sudipta: Does the gentleman have any other thoughts; he did not get out
before?
The speaker: no do not answer that. For a real question?
Real question: Even when you are convicted of a crime, you still have
fundamental rights. Does the gentleman not realize this?
The Sometime Chairman of the Conservative: Yes, but I am not going to
go into this
The Floor Leader of the Left gave the first speech in the affirmative.
She told the body that she could say, reject Allito because I don't
agree with him but that would not convince her conservative friends.
She suggested the questions that need to be asked are, "Should each
senator vote on whether to confirm Judge Allito?" and "What
qualities do we want a Supreme Court justice to possess?" We want
Supreme Court justices to be rational, intelligent, and dedicated to
the constitution. Are these standards enough? No. Being a judge and
being a justice in the Supreme Court is not the same thing. I want a
justice that will stand up for civil rights. But, Are my personal
beliefs enough to reject a judge. If you are a democrat then you have
the right to reject him on these bases. The world is changing. Congress
has authority to check the president. The senate does have a role. The
Supreme Court Serves at the pleasure of the people and serves for
decades. We need to consider this very seriously. The president should
not just pick who ever he wants. The Supreme Court justices decide how
the laws work.
The gentleman in the purple shirt: Should the judiciary have a
monopoly in the courts.
The Floor Leader of the Left: The Supreme Court does have to check the
congress.
The Treasurer of the Independent Party: Shouldn't we just change the
constitution to tack it on.
The Floor Leader of the Left: No.
Mrs. Wiseman: Which is more controversial, reinstating slavery or
getting rid of the Senate?
The Floor Leader of the Left: Reinstating slavery.
Silas: I think that the president should have a role. What are
constitutional principles and what are principles that we like? What
are the principles that we care about?
The Floor Leader of the Left: These justices must be able to uphold the
constitution.
Gentleman: Since, the country is becoming more conservative don't you
believe that this judge will represent American beliefs?
The Floor Leader of the Left: Judge Allito will probably be confirmed,
but I don't think that a couple of elections decide American beliefs.
Mr. Johnston gave the next speech in the negative. The right opposed
Harriet's appointment because she was not ready for the job. She does
not have the constitutional qualifications.. It is okay that you do not
like Allito or his political philosophy. These are legitimate reasons
to dislike Judge Allito but these are not legitimate reasons to reject
his appointment. This is not a personal matter. Judge Allito has a good
history as a judge. He has written more then 350 opinions. Even left
wing organizations unanimously decided that he is well qualified. Yes,
he is out of the mainstream, but can you say that he isn't qualified?
Whether you like his philosophy or not confirm him.
Mr. Apgar (IP): It doesn't matter what reasons the senate chooses to
reject him. Don't they have the right to reject him for any reason
they choose?
Mr. Johnson: Senators have the responsibility to chooses based on
qualifications.
The Floor Leader of the Left: That's all fine and good but then it
seems that the senate is forced to be in consensus with the President.
Mr. Johnson: But, once you decide you can say what you want you are no
longer bound by the constitution.
The Floor Leader of the Left: Based on history, how has this changed
the role of the Senate and the President in Supreme Court confirmation
hearings?
Mr. Johnson: There has been about a 20 percent rejection rate by the
senate. I acknowledge that senators can abandon their responsibilities
they should not.
The President: If a Judge's interpretation of the constitution states
that criminals have no rights then don't you believe that is a good
reason to find a judge unqualified.
Mr. Johnson: We don't want judges be picked that would have that
problem.
The Former President of the Union: What if a judge misinterprets the
constitution to read that a strip search of the mother and her
ten-year-old daughter, without a warrant is okay.
Mr. Johnson: People disagree about their constitutional
interpretations. The whole point of having an independent judiciary is
that they are not dependent on the people.
The Former President of the Union: What, you would approve of a justice
who would call the strip search a child without a warrant
constitutional?
Mr. Johnson: I am not a constitutional scholar. But, judge Allito does
not specifically do that.
Chairman of the Independent party: If Judge Allito is as smart as the
gentlemen syas, then I am unsure whether we would want him in office.
The smarter he is the more dangerous.
Mr. Johnson: we do want smart justices.
Mr. Shaffer gives a speech in the affirmative. First he would like to
address the statement from earlier that Allito represents what this
country is about. Republicans represent the minority not the majority
of American beliefs. Bush stole the election, the Senate majority is
because if Gerrymandering. On another issue, Conservatives believe in
moderate change. Nominees such as Allito, who is very active and ready
to make change, are exactly the opposite of conservatism.
Fundamentalism, going back and trying to find out exactly what the
founding father's said is ludicrous. Fundamental problem, is we are
looking at a document is not changing when the county is changing.
Times change and so should the laws of this nation. The he is so far
out side the mainstream that he would not allow us to move forward.
The gentleman: The gentleman seems not to accept the senate, the
constitution, the house or the president, is there any source of where
we should take our authority if not these bodies?
Mr. Shaffer: The constitution can be looked at but it is interpreted
differently by everyone.
John Lindsey: How do we use the constitution and why don't we deal
with that we know and fallow what is their?
Ben: Interpret it with an understanding of moderate change, which is
something judge Allito would not do.
Chair of the Independent Party moved that we thank Benjamin Shaffer for
his fine maiden speech on the floor of the YPU.
The Secretary Treasurer of the Party of the Right gave a speech in the
negative. He decided to give the body a History lesion. There is this
document that was created which out lined certain things like
interstate commerce, and the protection the general welfare. This was
more of a duty of the President. Until FDR, came along. He decided to
bully the Supreme Court to allow the Senate to do what it wants and
make big change. What this has left us with is a new role of the
Supreme Court. How could you support Judge Allito the idea that
restraining the economic power of the government is as important as
personal rights? He is interpreting the constitution the way it was
okay.
The Floor Leader of the Right: Why shouldn't our interpretation of
the constitution have changed, when we needed a change?
The Secretary Treasurer of the Party of the Right: We had a similar
problem during the civil war and what they did is pass amendments.
President: Is it not in fact the case they had a war first?
The Secretary Treasurer of the Party of the Right: The constitution can
change and I believe amendments are a much better form of change.
The Sometime Chair of the Liberal Party: Perhaps with the example of
interstate commerce was this good to change the interpretation of that
clause.
The Secretary Treasurer of the Party of the Right: I am not opposed to
states putting tariffs on other states goods, but we shouldn't use an
anti democratic process to do so.
Mr. Rosenthal: Would you give congress or the judiciary the right to
make the decisions? Taking into consideration that congress has the
fact finding abilities.
The Secretary Treasurer of the Party of the Right: there are arguments
that the Judiciary could do a better job by looking into the
constitution.
The Chairman of the Party of the Right Moves that thank Mr. Stagmire a
fine maiden speech on the floor of the YPU.
Mr. Jicha gives a speech in the affirmative. First address the three
negative speeches so far. Mr. Lee believes that the federal government
should be able to do what it wants, yet these powers are allocated to
the states. Mr. Johnson, believes that if they are qualified on paper
then we should just give a free pass to the Supreme Court. Which is an
incredibly important job. We do not want to allow our president to
appoint who ever. Mr. Stagmaire I don't understand why you could
stand by a judge that has voted for every federal power. He has made
strip searches without a warrant of a child and a mother more legal.
Judge Allito has not even heard cases that address civil rights abuses.
For example, rejecting a case because a lawyer's brief shouldn't be
enough to throw it out. The first amendment should only be withheld
when it has caused harm. Also, it is uncertain, how conservative Allito
is. He is going to take a huge role. I know what he has done in the
past. He restricted human rights. I urge the members of the body to
vote in the affirmative of the resolution.
Floor Leader of the Right: I am wondering why the gentlemen refers to
the results based approach. The overall rule results in a better
outcome.
Mr. Jicha: His briefs are really comprehensible. The Allito is clearly
not paying attention to the right things.
Alex Gregath: If the lawyer wrote a bad brief, he was not fallowing
proper procedure, so why shouldn't it be throng out?
Mr. Jicha: A defendant should not be rejected because the document
could be understood by one judge, this is the first amendment.
A Gentleman in black: Some issues are not included, and need to be
addressed more directly. Could we therefore look at the quality of our
lives?
Mr. Jicha: The extremism is inhibiting the flow of justice. I don't
see any reason why we should affirm him.
Closing remarks Mr. Rosenthal: Allito's views on Judicial Restraint
are in opposition on the one hand, restricting the senate, but on the
other he respects the president. He has also made arguments for the
state for the death penalty. He has not enforced law to protect the
rights of people.
Our guest was thanked for coming.
Chairman of the Party of the Right moves to previous question.
With a vote of 26 in the affirmative, 19 opposed and 5 abstentions, the
motion passes
At 10:18 pm the YPU adjourns to Yorkside.