Prop 1 Moiz Moral harm: it also applies to legislators as they are part of the

same system.
Legal infrastructure marginalizes groups. Attempting to drive o Courts often better e.g. Nawaz Sharif
change through courts here is ineffective and unaccpetbale in Judges dont make law: theyre interpret it (also said they
principle change it unclear phrasing)??? Theyve done good things
Objective: Change of perspective of people about (minorities). Courts often do go against public opinion
Happens best through different kinds of literature etc. ???
Defs: args:
o Movements: Girls at Dhabas etc. that move to create ???
change courts better
o ??? my fault directs attention to issues
Args: arg 1:
o Principally wrong when elected representative cant do their job, it is the courts
o Courts ineffective duty to step in.
o Courts harmful Courts are obligated to keep legislators in chack
Principally wrong: Often people cant force legislatures to do certain things, but
o Courts are entrenched in conservative traditional they can force courts:
values (unlike courts????) e.g African const. 43 ban o Right to an attorney is evidence of the fact that people
homos should always have access to the court and CAN do
Morally unacceptable to ask these people for something.
change. Appealing to oppressors is wrong. Social movements are most affected: its their decision about
o Often, movements have to compromise to appease what to choose
courts. This is giving up on people who youre Arg 2:
supposed to protect. Lobbies exist: Bengali statue example
Arg 2 o The court is independent, and does not need public
o Courts bad opinions backing.
If the constitution is fucked then change Courts arent bogged down by parties bitching
hard.
Judges biased
Social change predates the court decisions
e.g. brown v board.
o Legislators good:
Movements humanize people e.g. NFP or
engage???
(is he talking about social movements or
legislation????)

Opp 1 Wisha

Uganda Pride parade only possible because of a court decision striking

down presidential declaration/law Decent Rhetoric.

Questions prop: why only social movements and why only developing
countries
PROP 2 Mohazzab o By this logic, they shouldnt give decisions that piss
people off.
Debate has two parts: Courts are a lot less corrupt parliament represents
Courts forcing people v grassroots change conservative country, elected by them therefore more biased
Will courts even do anything o Judges are selected and not responsible to the
Respond to OPP: there is a difference between appealing to people who government.
are bigoted and appealing to a fucked up constitution. This is a principled Social movements only exist because the legislature has refused
distinction (how???) them in the past; why still depend on them?
Prop never refuted the issue about social movements choice
1. First issue: Prop also missed something else courts responsible to individual
a. Despite gay marriage, clerks refused to issue marriage justice
licenses POI: missed
b. 1st v 3rd world courts different: Case:
i. in the first, judges are more independent, o Court cases publically humanizes marginalized people
less politicized o This puts pressure on parliament
ii. people perceive courts badly in 3rd world
c. grassroots are much more effective:
i. people are ignorant, and dont understand
the injustice that their doing
ii. they humanize people
POI: legal support for oppression: there are others who dont even know
about injustice; change them first, then change laws
2. Courts wont rule progressively; more in positive case:

Progressive judges
Progressive judges become targets for backlash:
o Judges can be shot
o Political parties will fuck them over and they will lose
careers
Therefore:
o Judges less likely to rule progressively
o Instrumentalising judges: wrong morally

OPP 2 Natasha

Courts are bad, so dont appeal to them (even though that is the whole
purpose of the court); but then, who will you appeal to in the country:
Judges putting lives on line; they chose this, so this isnt a reason
to stop
Prop 3 Saljuk i. But you trust them with judicial review
anyway (good understanding of court)
Courts in dev. Countries are politicized and partisan: all we are ii. Lobbies fuck up legislature e.g.
saying is that courts are worse in this environment 2. Change

1. Duty of court
a. Courts are meant to protect the constitution, not re-
interpret it. They change laws to reflect that. This is a
prob. When constitution is total fuck
b. Courts DO NOT allow equal access to justice in
developing countries: courts arent powerful enpugh
to protect certain under protected classes.
c. Courts dont interpret constitutions
d. F court refuses people, then it hurts them.
2. Legislation useful?
a. Legislation is dependent on peoples views: if courts
support some people, it will just result in backlash
from oppressors
b. Minority legislation never comes forward if legislation
only supports majority.
Opp is harming its own objectives

Opp 3 Zuha

Court rulings tell people certain things are not okay

The waiting period for things e.g. martial rape is too much

1. Court mandate
a. Courts are bad because they use constitution: