…pretty please?
A debate I’m in soon inspired this thread: Is social reform through the courts ever preferable to reform through the legislature? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
but now I’ve realised that I actually need help, as I am the fifth speaker.
This means that all the good and obvious arguments will have been taken by the time I stand up.
The motion is “This House Believes That Movements That Seek Social Change Should Pursue it Through the Courts Rather Than The Legislature”.
The obvious arguments (I am in favour) are that:
(1) Reform through the courts is often easier to obtain
(2) Unpopular reforms are often only possible through the courts
These will be well worn by the time I get up - does anyone have any ideas?
I know it’s fairly hard to go outside the obvious on this one, but if it would actually help if people remind me of various causes won through the courts (abortion and gay marriage are the main ones that come to mind, with some of civil rights issues too I think).
Even if the examples are American, they may inspire me.
How long are the speeches? If you drill down into the logic of both of those points, you can easily find huge swathes of material.
Anyway, you’re speaking third prop, there’s an expectation that you will primarily deal with what’s already been said: I assume your opposition will have said things you can tear down.
Regardless, you could also talk about…
Constitutional theory and the separation of powers: why is the court the better arbiter of defining the limits of state authority? Hint: the who guards the constitution.
The role of democracy in defining popular rights: from whence do rights spring? Hint: it’s probably not popular opinion.
Just to name two things off the top of my head.
Thanks, but the problem is that I have the feeling that those will be well-parsed by the time they get around to me, and I am wary of depending on their rebuttel in case I am left speechless in front of a Supreme Court Judge 
Why did they have to go all out when they found a judge???
Turns out it’s ‘only’ a High Court judge, albeit one of the most prominant.
I’ve reread Federalist Paper 10, and have a few little ideas scetched down to aid me in my rebuttals tomorrow.
Wish me luck.