Increased exports would eventually plunge the dollar

Richard Baldwin, Professor of International Economics, Graduate Institute of Geneva, 10-2-07, Vox, php?q=node/587, Junaid

Here is the basic idea underlying dollar ‘plunge scenarios.’ Foreign investors have long demonstrated an increased appetite for US assets, moving a greater share of their portfolios into dollars and thus generating large capital flow into the US. But the capital flows needed to maintain an increased dollar share are much smaller than those needed to achieve it. Thus, when investors reach their desired holdings, there will be a drop off in capital flows into the United States, leading to an abrupt decline in both the current account deficit and the value of the dollar.

Dollar decline will cause economic Armageddon because of Industry collapse

Rohini Hensman and Marinella Correggia, 1-30-05, “US Dollar Hegemony: The Soft Underbelly of Empire,” rohini_marinella30012005.html

A country that offshores its own production is unable to balance its trade. Americans are able to consume more than they produce only because the dollar is the world reserve currency. However, the dollar’s reserve currency status is eroded by the debts associated with continual trade and budget deficits. The US is on a path to economic Armageddon. Shorn of industry, dependent on offshored manufactured goods and services, and deprived of the dollar as reserve currency, the US will become a third world country. Gomery notes that it would be very difficult—perhaps impossible—for the US to re-acquire the manufacturing capability that it gave away to other countries.

Competitiveness shrink the trade deficit by creating new US export markets

CATO Institute, 2008, Center for Trade policy studies, issues/deficit.html, Junaid

No aspect of international trade is talked about more and understood less than America's perennial trade deficit. Critics of free trade, and most Americans for that matter, believe the trade deficit is prima facie evidence that American companies are failing to compete in global markets or that U.S. exporters face "unfair" trade barriers abroad, or both. The obvious implication is that, if other nations were to open their markets as wide as we have supposedly opened ours, or if American companies became more competitive against foreign rivals, we could export more relative to imports, thus reducing the trade deficit. America's trade deficit is not a cause for alarm. It is not caused by "unfair" trade practices abroad or a lack of industrial competitiveness at home. The trade deficit results from a net inflow of foreign capital into the United States, capital drawn by America's vibrant and growing economy. Without this capital inflow, domestic interest rates would be higher, investment lower, and long-term growth rates slower.

The trade defecit has kept relations high

Daniel T. Griswold, Center for Trade Policy Studies, No Date Cited, http://trade. 2005/china/trade_deficit.html, Junaid

The bilateral trade deficit with China is not evidence of a failure in the trading relationship between the United States and China. In a healthy and growing economy such as that of the United States, consumers simply have more money to buy more goods and services, including more imports. The trade deficit grows when our economy grows and shrinks when our economy shrinks. At its most basic level, the bilateral trade deficit reflects a difference in U.S. consumer and Chinese consumer purchasing behavior and purchasing power.

US-China relations are key to prevent a global explosion

The Straits Times, 10-15-1997

However, the most important bilateral relations for overcoming potential tensions and conflicts are, of course, US-
China relations. Flashpoints in the Asia-Pacific include nuclear proliferation and the possible aggression or implosion of
North Korea, the use of force across the Taiwan Straits, and the possibility of military force being used to resolve
overlapping sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. The resolution or stabilisation of these tensions, so that they
do not explode into open conflicts, will depend to a large extent on the strategic relations between the US and China.
This does not mean that they can solve the problems by themselves, but their willingness and participation are of
paramount importance. This important bilateral relationship is now full of uncertainties.

US hegemony destroys the economy

Ivan Eland 02, Director of defense policy studies Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 459- The Empire Strikes Out: The New Imperialism and Its Fatal Flaws, November 26, pa459.pdf)

Most of all, the strategy of empire is likely to overstretch and bleed America’s economy and its military and federal budgets, and the overextension could hasten the decline of the United States as a superpower, as it did the Soviet Union and Great Britain. The strategy could also have the opposite effect from what its proponents claim it would have; that is, it would alarm other nations and peoples and thus provoke counterbalancing behavior and create incentives for other nations to acquire weapons of mass destruction as an insurance policy against American military might.

US hegemony causes backlash and terrorism

Christopher Layne, Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute, Spring 2002 (“The Washington Quarterly 25.2, pp 233-248, layne.pdf)

U.S. role in the Gulf has rendered it vulnerable to a hegemonic backlash on several levels. First, some important states in the region (including Iran and Iraq) aligned against the United States because they resented its intrusion into regional affairs. Second, in the Gulf and the Middle East, the self-perception among both elites and the general public that the region has Offshore Balancing Revisited l long been a victim of “Western imperialism” is widespread. In this vein, the United States is viewed as just the latest extraregional power whose imperial aspirations weigh on the region, which brings a third factor into play. Because of its interest in oil, the United States is supporting regimes—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf emirates—whose domestic political legitimacy is contested. Whatever strategic considerations dictate that Washington prop up these regimes, that it does so makes the United States a lightning rod for those within these countries who are politically disaffected. Moreover, these regimes are not blind to the domestic challenges to their grip on power. Because they are concerned about inflaming public opinion (the much talked about “street”), both their loyalty and utility as U.S. allies are, to put it charitably, suspect. Finally, although U.S. hegemony is manifested primarily in its overwhelming economic and military muscle, the cultural dimension to U.S. preeminence is also important. The events of September 11 have brought into sharp focus the enormous cultural clash, which inescapably has overtones of a “clash of civilizations,” between Islamic fundamentalism and U.S. liberal ideology. The terrorism of Osama bin Laden results in part from this cultural chasm, as well as from more traditional geopolitical grievances. In a real sense, bin Laden’s brand of terrorism—the most dramatic illustration of U.S. vulnerability to the kind of “asymmetric warfare” of which some defense experts have warned—is the counterhegemonic balancing of the very weak. For all of these reasons, the hegemonic role that the strategy of preponderance assigns to the United States as the Gulf’s stabilizer was bound to provoke a multilayered backlash against U.S. predominance in the region. Indeed, as Richard K. Betts, an acknowledged expert on strategy, presciently observed several years ago, “It is hardly likely that Middle Eastern radicals would be hatching schemes like the destruction of the World Trade Center if the United States had not been identified so long as the mainstay of Israel, the shah of Iran, and conservative Arab regimes and the source of a cultural assault on Islam.”15 (Betts was referring to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.)

Terrorism extinctions everyone.

Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Egyptian Political Analyst, Al-Ahram Newspaper, 8/26/2004, 2004/705/op5.htm

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilizations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Heg declining now – three reasons. Maintaining heg leads to a power vacuum which culminates in war.

Carlos Eduardo Martins is research director of the UNESCO-UNU Network on the Global Economy and Sustainable Development and an associate researcher at the Laboratory of Public Policy of the State University of Rio de Janeiro, translated by Timothy Thompson, Ph.D. candidate in English at Boston College. Latin American Perspectives 2007; 34; 16, content/abstract/34/1/16

I would argue that since 1967 the United States has been in a period of hegemonic decline. It still maintains its financial, ideological, and military hegemony, but it has been made increasingly vulnerable by the pressure that the current-account deficit in the balance of payments is exerting on the dollar, by neoliberalism’s crisis of legitimacy, and by the unfolding impact of September 11, 2001, which has reignited both U.S. imperialism and military-political reactions against it, threatening to expand the costs of securing the world-system to unforeseen dimensions.1 To situate the trajectory of U.S. hegemony in the world-system, we must bring the longue durée into our analysis. To do so, we should consider the following analytical elements:
1. Systemic cycles, theorized by the world-system school in works by writers such as Giovanni Arrighi and Beverly Silver (1999) and Immanuel Wallerstein (1996). These cycles are organized according to hegemonies divided into phases of expansion and crisis. During the crisis phase, the hegemon uses its financial power to continue leading global accumulation, but its financial strength soon gives way to increasing deterioration of its productive and commercial bases. The disintegration of hegemony gives rise to a stage of systemic chaos, and a bifurcation emerges in which new power structures vie for control. In historical capitalism, this process culminates in “thirty years’ wars” that end with a single configuration of power, one that reconstitutes the world-system upon new bases and increases both its breadth and the interaction among its parts.

We must transition away from unilateral hegemony now – transnationalism is the only way to prevent war. Maintaining hege leads to great power wars.

Carlos Eduardo Martins is research director of the UNESCO-UNU Network on the Global Economy and Sustainable Development and an associate researcher at the Laboratory of Public Policy of the State University of Rio de Janeiro, translated by Timothy Thompson, Ph.D. candidate in English at Boston College. Latin American Perspectives 2007; 34; 16, content/abstract/34/1/16

The trajectories of U.S. hegemony and the modern world-system in the coming decades should be understood in terms of these three long-run tendencies. I would argue that the expansion phase of a new Kondratieff cycle has been developing in the United States since 1994. This expansion will lack the brilliance of the phase that developed in the postwar period. It will be shorter and will promote lower rates of growth, since it will be affected by two downward trends: civilizational crisis and the B-phase of the systemic cycle. Within this new phase of expansion, the financial and ideological foundations of U.S. hegemony will deteriorate, and the United States will lose the leadership position that it exercised in the world economy from 1980 to 1990, when it was surpassed in dynamism only by East Asia. The world will enter a new phase of systemic chaos, and no nation-state will be able to reconstruct the world-system on new hegemonic bases. A bifurcation will occur: on one hand, there will be forces attempting to restore historical capitalism to U.S. imperialism via the cohesion of the principal centers of global wealth, and, on the other hand, there will be forces seeking to overcome the modern world-system through a posthegemonic system. This confrontation will occur not only among nation-states (although, in part, it may be oriented in terms of them) but also transnationally. The transnational dimension, aimed at creating new forms of power to direct both human existence and the planet, has already manifested itself, for example, in mass demonstrations against U.S. imperialism and the oligarchic coordination of the world economy and in attempts to organize social movements on a global scale, most notably in the World Social Forum. If transnationalism succeeds, humanity will be able to traverse the systemic chaos without succumbing to a cataclysmic war. Transnational forces will create “drive belts” across nation-states, circumventing global oligarchies. But if nationalism succeeds, it will be difficult to avoid a move toward fascism, barbarism, and the use of the state as an instrument of coercion.

US hegemony in East Asia hurts US-China relations

Wu Xinbo, Visiting Fellow, Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, September 2K (“U.S. Security Policy in Asia: Implications for China-U.S. Relations”, cnaps/papers/2000_wu.htm)

Three major factors have constantly troubled Sino-U.S. relations in the post-Cold War era: human rights, trade, and security. With the de-linking of China's human rights record from its MFN treatment in 1994 and the closing of Beijing-Washington marathon negotiations on China's WTO membership in 1999, human rights and trade may subside as major sources of tension on the bilateral agenda. Security issues, emerging in the mid-1990s, now appear to be the most important factor affecting bilateral relations. Due primarily to differences in their worldviews, historical experiences and capabilities, China and the U.S. have diverging conceptions of security, which in turn has led to their different security practices. Chinese and U.S. security interests in Asia both converge and diverge, and as the U.S. begins to contemplate China as a latent adversary, such divergence will become even more conspicuous. While both sides will continue to pursue their own security interests in Asia, each country also has to adapt itself to the changing political, economic and security landscape in this region. To enable durable, peaceful coexistence, both sides will have to make certain shifts in their current security policies. To address these questions more directly, this paper first considers some of the U.S. misperceptions about China's policy objectives in the Asia-Pacific and certain important conceptual differences on security practices between Beijing and Washington. Then, the study explores how China perceives the U.S. impact on its security interests. Finally, the paper concludes with a few policy recommendations as to how China and the United States could manage the bilateral relationship more effectively. Misperceptions and Conceptual Differences One popular perception in the U.S. about China's long-term policy objectives in Asia is that Beijing aspires to be the regional hegemon and would like to restore a Sino-centric order in this part of the world. This observation is wrong. First, Beijing believes in the trend of multipolarization rather than unipolarization at both global and regional levels, and predicts that with continued economic development and growing intra-regional political consultation in Asia, influence on regional affairs will be more diversified and more evenly distributed. Secondly, even though China expects some relative increase in its influence in Asia, it understands that because of the limits of its hard power and especially its soft power, China can never achieve a position comparable to its role in the ancient past or to the U.S. role in the region at present. Another misperception is that in the long run China will endeavor to drive the U.S. out of East Asia. Again this is not a correct assumption. From Beijing's perspective, the United States is an Asia-Pacific power, although not an Asian power, and its political, economic and security interests in the region are deep-rooted, as are its commitments to regional stability and prosperity. In fact, Beijing has always welcomed a constructive U.S. role in regional affairs. At the same time however, Beijing also feels uneasy with certain aspects of U.S. policy. As a superpower, the United States has been too dominant and intrusive in managing regional affairs. It fails to pay due respect to the voices of other regional players, and sometimes gets too involved in the internal affairs of other states, lacking an understanding of their culture, history and values. While there is no danger of the U.S. being driven out of East Asia, its current policy may result in the U.S. wearing out its welcome in the region, thus undermining its contributions to stability and prosperity. In addition to the above misperceptions about China's regional intentions, the United States and China also hold diverging conceptions of national and regional security. Hegemonic stability vs. security cooperation In the post-Cold War era, Washington has been advocating an Asia-Pacific security structure with the U.S. as the sole leader and with U.S.-led bilateral alliances as the backbone. This is in essence hegemonic stability. Beijing believes, however, that regional security rests on the cooperation of regional members and a blend of various useful approaches (unilateral, bilateral and multilateral, institutional and non-institutional, track I and track II, etc.), not just on one single country and a set of bilateral security alliances.

US drive for hegemony undermine transatlantic relations

Hug De Santis ‘1999, Former Official in the State Department and Professor of International Security Policy at the National War College, World Policy Journal, “Mutualism: An American strategy for the next century”, Volume 15, Issue 4, Winter 1998/1999, Proquest)

The structures for cooperative security already loosely exist in Europe; what is missing--in Washington and in Brussels--is the political will to animate them. The reality is that Europe cannot control its political destiny and simultaneously remain militarily dependent on the United States any more than the United States can expect its allies to assume greater defense obligations while it exercises political hegemony over them. In the absence of a global military threat, such contradictory aims will gradually fray the bonds of transatlantic cohesion. As a consequence of the effects of globalization, we may not have to wait long. For just as monetary union is likely to increase Europe's global economic profile, it will also transform transatlantic security relations.

US-EU relations are key to preventing Russian aggression in Central Asia

Zbigniew Brzezinski ‘03, Former National Security Advisor, The National Interest, “Hegemonic Quicksand”, Issue 74, Winter 03/04, Proquest)

While Russia has not stood in the way of any decisive U.S. military efforts to alter the strategic realities of the region, the current geopolitical earthquake in the Persian Gulf could jeopardize America's efforts to consolidate the independence of the Caspian Basin states. American preoccupation with the mess in Iraq, not to mention the cleavage between America and Europe as well as the increased American-Iranian tensions, has already tempted Moscow to resume its earlier pressure on Georgia and Azerbaijan to abandon their aspirations for inclusion in the Euro-Atlantic community and to step up its efforts to undermine any enduring U.S. political and military presence in Central Asia. That would make it more difficult for the United States to engage the Central Asian states in a larger regional effort to combat Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A resurgence of Muslim extremism of the Taliban variety could then even acquire a regional scope.
These risks could be lessened by closer U.S.-EU strategic collaboration with regard to Iraq and Iran. That may not be easy to achieve, given divergent American and European perspectives, but the benefits of cooperation outweigh the costs of any compromise. For the United States, a joint approach would mean less freedom of unilateral action; for the European Union, it would mean less opportunity for self-serving inaction. But acting together-with the threat of U.S. military power reinforced by the EU's political, financial and (to some degree) military support-the Euro-Atlantic community could foster a genuinely stable and possibly even democratic post-Saddam regime.

The Impact is Global instability and WMD conflict

Ariel Cohen in ’96, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1065, “The New "Great Game": Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia”, January 25, Research/RussiaandEurasia/ BG1065.cfm)

Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. and its allies. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russia's transition to a democracy and free-market economy. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $ 6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). Moreover, it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region, but for peace, world stability, and security. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS, these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Moreover, if successful, a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors, but also the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. And, of course, a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf. Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Middle East. Russian imperialists, such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south, the threat to Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and Afganistan will increase. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services, in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult

Text: The United States Congress should re-establish the TSM test for subject-matter patentability in the area of alternative energy.

KSR was a statutory interpretation case

Dickstein Shapiro, IP News August 2007 "The Calm After the Storm: KSR’s Impact and Lessons for Patent Litigators and Prosecutors"

I. The KSR Decision
In KSR, the Supreme Court was faced with the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant, KSR. Teleflex sued KSR for infringement of its patent entitled “Adjustable Pedal Assembly With Electronic Throttle Control,” United States Patent No. 6,237,565 B1. Claim 4 of the patent describes a mechanism for combining an electronic sensor with an adjustable automobile pedal, where the pedal’s position can be transmitted to a computer that controls the throttle in the vehicle’s engine. When Teleflex accused KSR of infringing its patent by adding an electronic sensor to one of KSR’s previously designed pedals, KSR countered by asserting that claim 4 was invalid under Section 103 of the Patent Act because the subject matter of the patent was obvious.
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent where “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
__[3__] In 1966, the Supreme Court set forth a framework for applying the statutory language of Section 103 (“Graham factors”).__[4__] Specifically, the Court ruled that: (1) the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art is to be resolved.__[5__] Against this foundation, the obviousness or non-obviousness of the subject matter is to be judged. In addition, secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long felt but unresolved needs, and the failure of others, may be utilized to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.__[6__]
Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1966, the Federal Circuit sought to resolve questions of obviousness with more uniformity and consistency. With this goal in mind, the Federal Circuit employed an approach commonly referred to as the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test (“TSM test”). Under the TSM test, a patent claim is obvious if “some motivation or suggestion to combine the prior art teachings” can be found in the prior art, the nature of the problem, or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
In reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment in KSR’s favor, the Federal Circuit employed the TSM test, and, finding no such teaching, suggestion, or motivation, held that claim 4 was non-obvious. The Federal Circuit rejected the conclusion of the district court, which was based on a review of the pertinent history of pedal design, the scope of the patent-in-suit and the relevant prior art. The district court found that, at the time the claimed subject matter was invented: (1) there existed little difference between the patent-in-suit and the prior art; (2) the state of the industry would lead inevitably to the combination of electronic sensors and adjustable pedals; and (3) the prior art provided the basis for this combination to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In reversing the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court gave merit to the district court’s analysis. According to the Supreme Court, the Circuit’s application of the TSM test in KSR was inconsistent with the “expansive and flexible approach” that the Supreme Court has used when faced with an issue of obviousness. The Supreme Court noted that there is no necessary inconsistency between the TSM and Graham tests. Nevertheless, given the factual circumstances presented in KSR, the high Court found that the Federal Circuit’s reasoning was “rigid.” The Supreme Court noted that the combination of familiar elements through known methods “is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
__[8__] As Justice Kennedy stated in his opinion, a “person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”__[9__]
The Supreme Court also rejected the Federal Circuit’s proscription against proving obviousness by showing that combinations are “obvious to try.” As a result, KSR provides strong support for the proposition that, where there is a “design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a
person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.”
__[10__] As the Court reasoned, “[i]f this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense.”__[11__]
II. Obviousness Decisions Subsequent to KSR
In the weeks following the KSR decision, a number of cases applied the Supreme Court’s “new” approach to evaluating obviousness under Section 103.
__[12__] These cases include Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., and Technology Licensing Corp. v. Gennum Corp. A review of these matters reveals how federal courts have integrated the KSR decision into an obviousness analysis, and provides guidance to patent litigators and prosecutors with respect to statutory interpretation of Section 103.

Congress can override the court's statutory interpretation by changing the law – means cp solves case

Tung Yin, prof of law at Iowa 1-25-06 "The NSA wiretapping controversy and statutory interpretation guidelines" prawfsblawg/2006/01/the_nsa_ wiretap.html

However, this canon of statutory interpretation assumes an ability on the part of Congress to undo what it perceives to be an erroneous interpretation by the Court. For example, in McNally v. United States (1987), the Court interpreted the federal mail fraud statute so as to preclude public corruption prosecutions, which had long been predicated on the charge that a public official had deprived the public of its right to his/her "honest services." Congress responded in 1988 by enacting 18 U.S.C. s 1346, which reads: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." Because the Court is engaging in statutory interpretation, not judicial review, its decision can be overriden by another Congressional statute.

A. Legitimacy high now – establishing unanimity has boosted Court cred.

Anthony Lewis, a former columnist for The New York Times, has twice won the Pulitzer Prize. His book Freedom for the Thought We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment was published this year. (May 2008)Volume 54, Number 20 · December 20, 2007 The Court: How 'So Few Have So Quickly Changed So Much' By

At the end of his first Supreme Court term, in July 2006, Chief Justice John Roberts was interviewed by Jeffrey Rosen for a book on the Court. Roberts emphasized the aim of having the justices subordinate their individual preferences to an effort to achieve unanimity. "I think it's bad, long-term," he said, if people identify the rule of law with how individual justices vote.... You do have to put [the justices] in a situation where they will appreciate, from their own point of view, having the Court acquire more legitimacy, credibility, that they will benefit from the shared commitment to unanimity.... People don't want the Court to seem to be lurching around because of changes in personnel. He added, Rosen wrote, that the example of Chief Justice John Marshall had taught him that personal trust in the chief justice's lack of an ideological agenda was very important. It is bewildering to read those words today. For in the Court's subsequent term, the one that ended last June, the number of unanimous decisions dropped sharply. More than a third of the argued cases were decided by votes of 5–4, a modern record proportion. In many of the most important cases Chief Justice Roberts led the identical five-man majority, in which he was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Eight of those decisions were radical departures from precedent. All moved toward a more conservative view of law and life.

B. Link/Internal Link– Violating “stare decisis” questions Court legitimacy

Law Library, No date given, < s065.htm>

Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.

C. Internal link – Court legitimacy key to maintain judicial independence – Canada proves

Wendy Tso, University of Alberta LL.B, No Date Given< __http://www.uofaweb.ualberta. ca/ccs/nav03.cfm?nav03=47967& nav02=35697&nav01=35499__>

Canada’s current structure of democratic governance allows the federal Cabinet and the Prime Minister to appoint judges (formalized through the Governor General) to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest and final court of appeal in the Canadian justice system. The provincial legislatures, the general parliament, and the citizens of Canada have no say in this process. As such, the current system is often criticized for its lack of transparency, and the danger of such appointments being partisan and politicized to fit the agenda of the governing party. Without formal constraints on such a process, judicial independence is also a concern, especially since a Prime Minister would likely appoint judges sympathetic to his or her party’s political policy. In a recent report by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, it is stated that “uncertainty endangers legitimacy and breeds a lack of confidence in the process, if not among "experts" then at least in the general public, a danger to be avoided if the institution of the Supreme Court of Canada is to maintain its high regard in Canada and elsewhere.”[i] It is also noted that Canada is the only Western democracy “with such a closed and discretionary system for high court appointments.[ii]
While the inconsistencies of the judicial appointment process have been an issue for decades, it has now come to the forefront of political debate and public scrutiny, especially in reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling of same-sex marriages in 2004. Due to this controversial decision, many experts agree that calls for reform may soon be realized in Canada. Current options for reforming the judicial appointment process generally follow a set of four guiding principles: merit, democratic legitimacy, judicial independence/impartiality and integrity of the courts, and transparency.[iii] Several current proposals suggest judicial appointment by committee or commission: selection of candidates based on nomination, search, or application, followed by a thorough interview process, possibly enhanced with public hearings. Experts warn that committees must be impartial and independent, diverse and representative, and its decisions and recommendations final.[iv]

D. Judicial legitimacy key to stop terrorism

Shapiro ’03 (Jeremy, Associate Director and Research Associate, Brookings Institute, March “French Lessons: The Importance of the Judicial System in Fighting Terrorism __ cusf/analysis/shapiro20030325. htm__)

The unique nature of terrorism means that maintaining the appearance of justice and democratic legitimacy will be much more important than in past wars. The terrorist threat is in a perpetual state of mutation and adaptation in response to government efforts to oppose it. The war on terrorism more closely resembles the war on drugs than World War II; it is unlikely to have any discernable endpoint, only irregular periods of calm. The French experience shows that ad-hoc anti-terrorist measures that have little basis in societal values and shallow support in public opinion may wither away during the periods of calm. In the U.S., there is an enormous reservoir of legitimacy, established by over 200 years of history and tradition, in the judiciary. That reservoir represents an important asset that the U.S. government can profit from to maintain long-term vigilance in this type of war. Despite the unusual opportunity for innovation afforded by the crisis of September 11, the U.S. government has not tried to reform American judicial institutions to enable them to meet the threat of terrorism. To prevent the next wave of attacks, however far off they might be, and to avoid re-inventing a slightly different wheel each time will require giving life to institutions that can persist and evolve, even in times of low terrorist activity. Given the numerous differences between the two countries, the U.S. cannot and should not simply import the French system, but it can learn from their mistakes. Their experience suggests a few possible reforms: • A specialized U.S. Attorney tasked solely with terrorism cases and entirely responsible
for prosecuting such cases in the U.S.
• Direct and formal links between that U.S. Attorney’s office and the various intelligence agencies, allowing prosecutors to task the intelligences agencies during judicial investigations • Special procedures for selecting and protecting juries in terrorism cases and special rules of evidence that allow for increased protection of classified information in terrorist cases Creating a normal, civilian judicial process that can prosecute terrorists and yet retain legitimacy is not merely morally satisfying. It may also help to prevent terrorist attacks in the long run. Not incidentally, it would demonstrate to the world a continuing faith in the ability of democratic societies to manage the threat of terrorism without sacrificing the very values they so desperately desire to protect.

E. Terrorism extinctions everyone.

Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Egyptian Political Analyst, Al-Ahram Newspaper, 8/26/2004, 2004/705/op5.htm

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilizations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

A. Investor confidence is on the brink – rescue of financial institutions shored up confidence, but any erosion cascades globally

WSJ (Wall Street Journal), 7-15-08, “The Multifront War Over Investor Confidence”, SB121610307854153963.html?mod= googlenews_wsj

That seemed to help, at least temporarily, since investors yesterday bought $3 billion in short-term debt in a Freddie auction that drew more bids than usual and thus allowed the company to offer lower yields and keep down its borrowing costs, as The Wall Street Journal notes. This confidence stems from the powerful promise Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson essentially made to back Fannie and Freddie on Sunday, however much he expressed a preference for keeping their shareholder-owned structures. As BusinessWeek's Michael Mandel argues, the two seem to be "on the inevitable road to being bailed out, nationalized, and shrunk," since the placement of "the full faith and credit of the U.S. government behind two private financial companies" can't be undone. Still, if Mr. Paulson's weekend moves helped shore up short-term confidence in Fannie and Freddie's ability to keep pumping money into the housing market, they didn't solve long-term worries about their capitalization, the Journal says. The rescue of Fannie and Freddie came "after Wall Street executives and foreign central bankers told Washington that any further erosion of confidence could have a cascading effect around the world," officials tell the New York Times. And yet, the start-and-stop market cascades tied to the mortgage crisis that began early last year were at it again today. Yesterday's fall in U.S. banking stocks today is translating into hefty losses in Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan, and in London, Frankfurt and Paris, too. The dollar reached a new low against the euro, which was buying more than $1.60, and U.S. stock futures are down ahead of the market open in New York.

B. Predictable decisionmaking key to business confidence

Oesterle, Ohio State Law Professor, 2k5 [Dale, "Samuel Alito: A 'Pro-Business' Justice," 11-7-05, __http://lawprofessors.typepad. com/business_law/2005/11/ samuel_alito_a_.html__ ]

What the stories reveal, however, is a Judge that decides cases based on a careful, almost dull, parsing of legal rules and doctrines. The cases cited do not reveal a pro-business bias or a pro-"little people" bias either. They demonstrate a judge wedded to the notion that courts apply exiting rules and rarely make new ones.
In an important sense, this approach is pro-business, not because businesses are more likely to win, but because businesses thrive when legal uncertainty is controlled and minimized. Legal certainty enhances business planning and reduces business risk, encouraging capital investment. It is the predictability he will add to Supreme Court business opinions that is pro-business.

C. Predictable precedent regime key to business confidence

Lorraine Woellert, correspondent for Buisness Week, 10-16-05, Forget Roe and the framers, lets talk business __ wp-dyn/content/article/2005/ 10/15/AR2005101500101.httml__

Religious and other social conservatives want justices who will apply a very narrow "strict constructionist" interpretation to the Constitution and not read new rights -- such as the right to privacy found in Roe v. Wade -- into the framers' text.
Roberts already has disappointed them. "Judges take a more practical and pragmatic approach when deciding the rule of law," rather than sticking to a strict philosophy, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The Framers were aware they were drafting for the future." Roberts also tipped his hat to the importance of legal precedent and the need to avoid enacting rapid and radical changes in law: "It is a jolt to the legal system to override precedent."
Translation: Roe might be here to stay, but business can take comfort. What corporate America wants from the judicial branch more than anything else is consistency and predictability -- tools for planning in the short term. That's one reason CEOs mourned the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor. Legal scholars have scoffed at her philosophical inconsistency, but business execs lauded her practicality and her frequent acknowledgments of real-world situations in opinions that often made their 9-to-5 workday a little easier.

D. Bizcon key to the economy

Kirchhoff and Hegenbaugh in 4 Sue and Barbara. “What’s worrying business?” __ educate/college/careers/ news12.htm__

Business investment and hiring are key to sustained economic growth, as consumer spending growth slows from its heady pace. While corporate profits and spending have ramped up, economists are nervous about one key element -- confidence.
Business confidence has eroded since spring, according to several surveys. On Monday, economic consulting firm said its weekly survey of business owners showed declines were widespread, both geographically and across industries. The U.S. index is off 25% from its peak earlier this summer.
How business executives see the world is key for the economy because it can influence decisions on hiring and investing. Nervousness is likely one reason hiring has been patchy this year, spiking in March but growing less rapidly since then.

A. Increases must be measured against the current baseline value of the incentive

Janice Rogers, DC Circuit Judge, 2005 (New York v. EPA, U.S. App. Lexis 12378; 60 Erc (Bna) 1791, lexis)

Relying on two "real world" analogies, government petitioners contend that the ordinary meaning of "increases" requires the baseline to be calculated from a period immediately preceding the change. They maintain, for example, that in determining whether a high-pressure weather system "increases" the local temperature, the relevant baseline is the temperature immediately preceding the arrival of the weather system, not the temperature five or ten years ago. Similarly, [**49] in determining whether a new engine "increases" the value of a car, the relevant baseline is the value of the car immediately preceding the replacement of the engine, not the value of the car five or ten years ago when the engine was in perfect condition.

Text: The United States Supreme Court should, in a relevant test case, re-establish the TSM test for subject-matter patentability in the area of energy sources that are not oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power.

Contention One is Competition

We’re the USC definition of alternative energy.

U.S. Code, 4/25/08, TITLE 26. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 USCS § 7701

(D) Alternative energy facility. For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term 'alternative energy facility' means a facility for producing electrical or thermal energy if the primary energy source for the facility is not oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power.

Contention Two is Net Benefits

Capital-intensive, state directed alternative energy co-opts alternative lifestyles and counterculture possibilities into the corporate mainstream

Leigh Glover, PhD, Assistant Professor and CEEP Policy Fellow; 2006, "From love-ins to logos: charting the demise of renewable energy as a social movement", pp249-270. publications/2006_es_love-ins_ to_logos.pdf [JWu]

Contemporary renewable energy technologies were researched and developed effectively beginning in that era. Much of the early experimentation with sustainable energy was outside the state and corporate spheres, conducted in personal, communal, and academic contexts. A small amount of post-war experimentation was greatly supplemented by an explosion of activity in the later 1960s. The business sector became involved in the development and manufacture of commercial products toward the latter part of this period, most notably where this involved discrete machinery or components (wind turbines, solar cells, and solar thermal heaters). Renewable energy companies were usually small and independent of conventional energy corporations and utilities. Applications of the technology were isolated, small, privately or communally owned, usually domestic or agricultural, and often “hobbyist” in character. Alternative technologies of greatest interest at the time were amenable to investigation and application with low levels of investment: PV, small wind, small hydro, and bio-digestion. On the other hand, technologies such as tidal power and geothermal energy were in the inaccessible “big science” league.
Alternative energy was effectively a subculture in this period, much of it independent of government and corporate involvement. There was widespread information on these technologies through various outlets, including
magazines (for example, in the U.S., Organic Gardening and Farming, Environment Action Bulletin, and Home Power) and importantly, through the social network of the counter culture. Much individual experimentation
took place and there was great innovation. As with many nascent technologies, amateur curiosity was an initial motivation, and little capital was involved. With the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s, renewable energy garnered
wider attention, and the interest of governments and the scientific establishment validated the potential of this technology as a “solution to the energy crisis.” And this same decade essentially marked the end of renewable energy’s first phase.
If we allow that technology has social roots (Winner, 1977, 1986; Bijker et al., 1987; McGinn, 1990), and that renewable energy expanded outside obvious corporate and state sponsorship (Butti, 1980), then what social forces and social goals shaped this technology? Renewable energy received its first widespread applications and use in the industrial economies through the followers of alternative lifestyles. Today this phrase invites derision and has
been co-opted to serve a number of political interests, but at the time it meant those wanting to live outside the mainstream. Rejecting the confines of conventional life in the developed world, individuals and groups experi-
mented with a variety of alternative social choices in living arrangements, property ownership, farming, material consumption, entertainment, drugs, marriage, education, transport, health, religion, and a plethora of other dimensions of social life. It was always loose, as social movements are want to be, and difficult to fix in any absolute sense.

This massively consumerist alternative energy divides environmentalists, slows environmental gains, and props up exploitative capitalism

Leigh Glover, PhD, Assistant Professor and CEEP Policy Fellow; 2006, "From love-ins to logos: charting the demise of renewable energy as a social movement", pp249-270. publications/2006_es_love-ins_ to_logos.pdf [JWu]

Environmentalists divided over this development according to their ideologies. Pragmatists, for example, welcome the support that the renewablesbased economy would receive from giant energy corporations, taking these
developments as proof of the efficacy of the renewable energy cause (Flavin and Lenssen, 1994; Brown et al, 1991; Brown, 2004). On the other hand, skeptics have doubted that corporations will genuinely promote a renewablesbased economy, and speculate that the corporate elite may even use their influence to slow its arrival (Scheer, 2002). All environmentalists accept that corporations are responding to the profit motive in their industry investments. Caution by both parties may be necessary at this stage, for although the energy giants have made considerable expenditures on renewable energy, these amounts are minor in their overall budgets and operations.7
More than the actual scale of corporate investment, at stake is what to make of a renewable energy future steered by corporate strategy and state policy. It is offered here that this development represents the “ecological modernization” of renewable energy.8 While the state has dabbled in renewable technologies for quite some time, these efforts have been highly publicized and generally of little significance. Almost no national energy system in the developed world has managed to get beyond a couple of percent of its energy supplies or meet any significant portion of its major energy service needs from renewable sources. Yet, with the entry of large energy corporations into the field, the responsibility of the state is changed and its provider role for the interests of “capital-in-general” is evoked. Now the state will work more assiduously to provide the regulatory, policy, and political settings that will assist the development of the renewables-based economy. Doubtless the state’s task of easing the way for renewable energy is made politically gentler if the conventional energy corporations also own the renewable energy enterprises.

This ethic of massive consumerism will devastate the environment and cause planet-wide extinction

Dennis Soron, PhD, assistant professor, a sessional lecturer with Sociology Department at University Alberta, Spring 2005 "Death by consumption". Labour/Le Travail, No. 55; journals/llt/55/soron.html

IN RECENT YEARS, critical discussions of consumption and consumerist lifestyles, long consigned to the academy and the counter-cultural fringe, have increasingly moved to the forefront of some of the most urgent social, political, and economic debates of our time. Contemporary environmentalists, for instance, have consistently attempted to sound the alarm that our accelerating levels of consumption and resource-use are bringing us to the verge of ecological exhaustion. As Betsy Taylor and David Tilford argue, all available evidence suggests that "skyrocketing consumption is rapidly depleting the Earth's ecosystems, robbing future generations of vital life-sustaining resources ... [and] using far more of the Earth than the Earth has to offer."__1__ Indeed, Alan Durning writes, "measured in constant dollars, the world's people have consumed as many goods and services since 1950 as all previous generations put together."__2__ As a consequence of such dramatically inflated rates of consumption, the World Wildlife Fund reports, global ecosystems over the past 25 to 30 years alone have lost over 30 per cent of the basic resources needed to sustain life on this planet.__3__